Politics – On a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a group of taxpayers did not have standing to sue the US government for its funding of faith-based initiatives with federal money.
Its so nice to know that the conservatives like luvmyprez have a seat in heaven on the right side of god. It must be euphoric to know you are eternal and righteous.
Oh, those atheists and agnostics are so bad. :) :)
It will be so nice for luvmyprez and me not to be annoyed by your presence (in heaven) and it is euphoric to know we are righteous. By the way you said the agnostics were bad, we didn't. That's the thing about being a Christian, we're all inclusive, too bad you're not. We can still pray for you whether you like it or not.
Things like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are why, however mad/disappointed I may be with W, I can never be a liberal or a Democrat.
Especially in the inner city, faith-based groups are highly effective ways to deliver services and assistance ot the underprivileged. Some may have records of dishonesty, but not great majority. Phoney,money-grubbing televangelists are not the kind of people I'm talking about, but the inner-city churches and mainistries.
The thing I'm not comfortable about is the ability of these groups to exclude others from working with them. It seems to me that if you take public money you should not then be able to turn people away either from working as volunteers or from receiving services because they are not part of your group. Not that private groups shouldn't be able to decide with whom to associate--that's a civil right the ACLU does NOT support--but that if they take money from society as a whole, they lose the right to be exclusive.
Oh yes, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is eeeeeevil!
These are some of the anti-American things they have done:
"In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery."
So they prefer people suffer instead of getting help. I bet a faith-based charity is far more efficient with the funds it gets than "professional" charities that gobble up most of the funds while lining their pockets.
The key word here is PRIVATE money.
Please do not waste MY tax dollars on initiatives that have been repeatedly shown to be ineffective.
Hey - Yale did right by the Bush's!!!!!
By ineffective I was reffering to the megabucks that this administration has diverted to Faith-Based items such as sex-education and AIDS education.
What, don't you believe in sex and AIDS?
Have faith, you may yet get sex!
I hope you don't get AIDS.
But If you do, I hope that you get the kindness of faith based care, as opposed to the nice institutionalized care that is all you want the gov to support.
Look at World Vision, they get 86 cents on every dollar to the people they support. No, that is not republicans.
They do much better than our government has done in distributing aid. They take it right where it is needed.
They do not discriminate on race, color, sex, religion.
They do discriminate on need.
I don't understand why people discriminate based on religion, when you should discriminate on results.
I agree that many social programs are well run by religious organizations, and well run programs should be funded. Many of these programs are very well established, having existed long before a White House office of faith-based initiatives.
The problem with many of the "initiatives" that have come out of this office, such as the absitnance only programs is that they do not discriminate based on results. They just eat up funds without producing any demonstrated positive results.
According to the article you provided above, there have been no metrics used on any of the non-abstinence only programs either. Therefore,
"They just eat up funds without producing any demonstrated positive results."
------------
Sorry for this interjection, but irony is such a beautiful thing, even when I end up getting hit with it, I really appreciate it. When I get missed by it, I do appreciate it more.
Sex education is not "faith based" just because includes abstinence. Not having sex has been found to be one of the leading causes of teenagers not having kids! What a horrible thought!
Fighting AIDS by abstinence is one of the most effective ways, short of faithful sex with a faithful single partner and not combining them with sharing needles. And I don't mean faithful to God, I mean faithful to each other.
Why is pointing out the truth such a bad thing?
Please cite a study that demonstrates the effectiveness of fighting AIDS by absitnence only? Or a study showing the differential imporvement resulting from an inclusion of absitinence in a multi-facited approach.
The study you cite should justify spending about a third of the budget on abstinence approaches rather on other approaches.
Show me a study where people using abstinence only protection (and using it), and are not needle users, have been catching AIDS.
That is like asking me to demonstrate the effectiveness of not being in traffic on reducing the risk of being a traffic fatality.
------------
Anecdotally, I was unable to catch a venereal disease (AIDS included) for years, due to the curse of abstinence.
------------
More to the point, abstinence-only is not the only thing in the faith based initiatives, though I understand it may be particularly offensive one to you.
Luv:
Yes they have.
Are all dem politicians running gay brothels, like Barney was(n't, I'm not going to take a situation that looks bad and call it illegal, even if you do to Dobbson, but I don't mind a little insinuation)?
What about the great congressman from Louisiana? Does he make all dems crooks (or just all politicians)? Did Clinton make all dems cheat?
For a group of people who are so nonjudgmental, (some of) you paint anyone who disagrees with your politics with the same broad, bigoted, brush that some republicans do.
I'm not being bigoted, I'm pointing right at you, edinburg, and your words, and yours Ciera Mariea. There are crooked people in all walks of life, and you choose to bigotedly say that religious people are all corrupt.
No we didn't and no we're not bigots. All we did was to point out the wolves in sheep's clothing who preach on TV and radio one thing all while doing another. Something the bible says we are to warn each other about.
Maybe you're comfortable with a preacher who preachers against homosexuality, gay marriage, drug use, extra marital affairs and premarital sex while doing some of those very things on call with the president. I'm not. I'm also not okay with one of those preachers speaking out against the evils of gambling and blaming it as one of the causes of the breakdown of the family, yet takes pro gambling money. One of them also owns a diamond mine. A lot of them also have private jets, wear tailored suits among other things.
The preachers Edinbug and I mentioned actually give the ones that are walking the walk, doing God's work a bad name.
Yes, some of them have screwed up badly, but as a Christian, I understand about being a fallen person in a fallen world, I understand about hypocrisy. That does not mean I have to trust them with money and influence again.
The church isn't FULL of hypocrites, so come on in, 'cuz there's always room for one more!
------------
I am not Dobbson's shill, and I don't agree with everything he says, but there has been nothing that stuck to him. Only allegations that were shown to be false.
If you know better, let me know.
------------
edinburg stated "they've been rife with corruption and kickbacks." This is a blanket condemnation, with no follow through. Are they worse than other grants? Is it just his stereotyping? I'm only asking you because you engaged, and he didn't.
Well, not Cornell, but you make a good point. Why is one sector of American society afraid of religion?
Because only a fool would not recognize the power grab the extreme religious right is making on the countries political landscape. These people call them self Christians but don't have the traditional Christian values we all learned and remember. They call themselves Evangelicals, or Fundamentalist's or similar names but they have a very nationalistic view of religion and a strong right leaning aim for the country. Many of these people find nothing wrong with the brainwash of very young children as at the infamous Jesus Camp. These people must not gain control of your government at any cost.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
190)
Making Faith-based legal doesn't make it effective.
For the Executive branch (with consent from an effite Congress to continue pooring HUGE $$ into this demonstrated ineffective program is obscene.
'But in Alito's decision, the Justice was dismissive of the worries of the plaintiffs in the case.
"None of the parade of horribles respondents claim could occur...has happened," the Court's newest Justice wrote. "In the unlikely event any do take place, Congress can quickly step in."'
Hardly reassuring use of the English - or American - language.
It would be interesting to know a bit more about which "horribles" he is thinking about and how exactly Congress will "step in quickly.." [Is he talking about a veto?]
As a fervent advocate of the separation of government and religion having seen and experienced some of the worst possible excesses imaginable in various countries in Europe under Nazism and Communism this is about as far from making me whoop with joy as I can imagine.
Do you believe that his crusade to promote teen celibacy is bad?
I don't see anything inherently religious about asking teen to limit their sexual activity, and I understand that it can lead to better "life outcomes". Horrible, that.
Isn't there enough of this already with this absurd silver ring c..p? Teenagers definitely need information but trying to programme them - forget it! You're at least as likely to provoke an FU response.
I'm a LONG way past being a teenager but this gets my adrenaline flowing!
~ Gambling ~
Welcome to Gambling !
~ http://tnij.org/gambling.com ~
Our site is a ratings guide to the best online casinos, poker rooms and gaming sites on the web. Our team has been wagering at online casino sites since 2000 and we know which casinos are reputable through personal experience. For the best online gambling experience we recommend the following casinos.
~ http://tnij.org/online-gambling.com ~
Only about as bad as a war on drugs would be, oh wait...
seriously, teenagers have sex. always have, always will. i agree that people should be able to contribute to private charities and groups to warn teenagers about the dangers of sex, but if the govt is going to foot the bill it should be for the realistic cause of promoting healthy and safe sexual relationships among teens, and offering help to those in bad situations.
imo
Boy, thats as bad as saying make abortion legal, since people are killing babies anyway, oh wait..
You make it out that ALL that is being taught in any of these programs is abstinence. The issue is that in most other programs, abstinence is not even being promoted as a possible solution. So you complain that 50Mil goes to various faith based programs, that are not allowed to mention their faith.
In the mean time, "Planned Parenthood" gets hundreds of million of taxpayer dollars to promote abortion as a viable birth control practice.
So you complain that 50 mil may be used to STOP something that a lot of people think is wrong.
But you have no issue with 200 mil being sent to promote, and do, something that a lot of people think is murder.
I totally see the problem you have with healthy marriage!
Wait, did I read that right? What is wrong with that?
I looked 9 pages deep in google "Healthy Marriage Initiative", and the only things I found bad were that some people with a long record of marriage advocacy were paid to advocate marriage. Their crimes seem to be that they were also conservative, and (this one may be real, but did not lead to any charges) that they were not disclosing that they were paid by the Gov to continue to advocate for marriage.
The outcome is that the government is not allowed to hire anyone with a history of marriage advocacy who works for the media.
That is a stupid restriction.
I guess we should not hire anyone who has advocated diplomacy to be a diplomat.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01...
I looked at the link you provide, and it shows that some people work for the government, or get grant money, who happen to have a particular religion ("Moonies").
They are not hiding their religion, they are not allowed to proselytize.
So what if they are Moonies? So what if they are left, right, purple or what ever? I thought libs were supposed to be all for inclusion and diversity. Are you picking on them cause they are MOONIES? Do you only want people who think marriage is a lose lose situation should teach it?
Do they have to swear they are atheists or agnostics to apply?
Do you even care that good marriages have a healthy outcome for kids?
What are you complaining about that is legitimate?
Happens, I've done it myself :)
You've done it yourself!
Well THAT'S good to hear!
Frequently and with the lights on?
Note: "done it myself" not "done it with myself" or "done it to myself".
I am too much of gentleman to kiss and tell, so it stays between my light bulb and I. ;^D
Not a Freudian slip, I assume.
Freud's first slip.
It was a lacy little mid thigh.
You mean the guy that was coronated by congress?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04179/337795.stm
I agree; this is a slippery slope the Court has stepped onto. As history has shown several times, whenever religion is involved to a great degree in the monetary affairs of the state or vice versa, then there is, under the guise of religion, a natural tendency for persecution against some members of a society while other members enjoy a privileged and or protected life style supported by the church/state. I think that is why the founding father's was rather adamant about a separation of church/religion and state.
Also, I would like a clarification of the word 'horribles' as used in the context of the decision.
And I would normally not ask, but I would like a clarification of the phrase "is why the founding father's was" in the context of this discussion.
Never had a typo get out of your office, huh? You must be blessed, that way.
Do you think that only groups that sign a certificate that they are atheists should be able to get funding from the government?
If the government hands out money to anyone who can accomplish the task required, absolutely regardless of their religious beliefs, it is not endorsing a religion. It is not establishing a religion, it is accomplishing a task, blind to the religion of the contractors or grantees who are performing it.
As soon as it steps away from that, and limits what the religious beliefs of the organization it is funding, it has started endorsing a belief, even if it is a belief in "no religion".
There, I left an error in there for you to find, too.
I mean other than errors in philosophy :^)
I agree with both of you to some degree.
As a semi religious person who appreciates the benefits religion provides, I don`t like the politicization of the largest religious group in America through political purse strings. That said, religious groups have been historically very effective centers of charity for those who have fallen through the cracks of society. As a regular community volunteer I think this is an admirable initiative. The question is how to share the $ among all religions and regions for the greatest positive affect.
This is where I have trouble with the results.
Bush`s Faith-based initiatives have been politicized and have been proven ineffective. As a taxpayer I find this misuse or waste of our money offensive.
Why not apply NCLB type rigid testing to Faith-based initiatives in order to keep the money flowing?
yes, it does depend on what you mean by Fiath-based. As applied by this administration, it has rsulted in billions going to ineffective AIDS programs and ineffective sex-"education" programs. There are, on the otherhand many "faith-based" initiatives in general eduation (pirvately funded Catholic schools for one) that have been effective in their missions.
I'm asking because I don't know, and hope you can point me to data sources.
When you say "ineffective AIDS programs and ineffective sex-"education" programs", what are your figures of merit?
How do you decide what is and isn't effective in this context?
By those same figures of merit, how are the non-faith based programs working?
By way of full disclosure, I may use the data you give me against you.
Here is a report of one of the several studies.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=3048738
An article on AIDS was in New England Journal of Medicine May 11, 2006 (NEJMed 354:19) Let me know if you can not access it.
No issue opening it, thanks.
Tell me if I characterize anything wrong.
-----------
You need to choose better supporting data, since this did not say anything about faith based vs non faith based, it said abstinence only versus non-abstinence only.
Also, your "billions" is wrong. This says 147 mil last year, IIRC, which over 7 years is only 1.03 billion, but it has ramped up, so it was less than that. During this same time, Planned Parenthood using the same function (last year times 7 years) has received over to 2.1 billion, but same deal, it probably ramped up, so it is less than that.
-----------
More to follow
Sorry, my lesdyxia struck again, it was 176 or 1.23 mil, according to the article.
that should have been 176 mill or 1.23 billion over 7 years.
The statistics show there is no change in behavior for abstinence only over nothing.
There are no statistics available for non-"abstinence only" programs, because there is no money available.
-----------
Non-"abstinence only" programs have been around since I was in high school, in the 70s, but they claim there is no data on them. Do YOU believe that? If there is none, what metric are we using to continue to fund them?
Planned Parenthood (alone) got 305 million from the government in '06*, but there was no money to check to see if it's programs are effective?
How come 300 meg is not being watched as close as 150 meg?
* page 14 by number and 16 by count:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Ann...
"Making Faith-based legal doesn't make it effective. "
The fact is that the faith based agencies where more effective than non faith based before the question of making government money available. Unfortunately, with all the strings attached, few agencies will actually apply for the money.
"Making Faith-based legal doesn't make it effective."
The fact that it's faith based, doesn't make it bad or ineffective.
The point is that these groups were being hampered by unreasonably restrictive laws.
We give support to lots of groups who provide assistance to people in need, and faith based groups should not be excluded simply because christo-phoebic groups are going to have a tantrum about it.