Is Bush weaseling out?

Meh....he probably read it in "Newsweek"

 

Russ, Joe,

My guess is he read it in Time, not Newsweek.

But that is beside the point.

Clearly Natoma is wrong in that there is no official position of "Religious Advisor to the President", but neither of you can debate the fact that every President since George Washington has had some form of a religious/spiritual advisor, official or not. Most people (not just politicians) see their local minister as their "relgious advisor", so why not the president?

And I am sure you cannot debate the fact that GWB has some very strong ties to religion and in particular the Evangelical right.

W himself claims to have found Jesus (sometime in the 80's and somewhere near the bottom of a bottle if i am not mistaken), and doesnt hesitate to tell how that experience has enriched his life.

Back when W was Governor of Texas, he became convinced that America would be a better country if the government paid more religious groups to run social programs. One of the people who convinced him was Marvin Olasky.

Marvin Olasky's the editor of WORLD, it's a well-known evangelical Christian magazine. He's been advising George W. Bush since he was governor. In fact, he helped come up with Bush's slogan "compassionate conservatism."

Clearly, Marvin Olasky can be thought of as a Religious Advisor to the President, in spirit if not in actual title. Their association goes back to 1993.

And loo and behold...

The Faith Based Initiatives program

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

While i cannot argue with the good that this program will undoubtedly do, it sits precariously on the edge of the seperation of Church and State line.

The whole thing was debated in Congress for a while. The House eventually passed W's plan (although pretty watered down from the original), almost straight down party lines. But there was so much opposition in the Senate that they never even voted on it. But President Bush didn't let Congress stop him, no siree.

He used his executive power to do it all anyway. He's told six federal departments and more than 30 government agencies that it's okay to give religious organizations access to more than $65 billion of taxpayer money.

Many of the appointies of various Faith Based Intitiaive deptartments have ties going back to the religious right, one in particular is the Deputy Director, David Kuo.

David Kuo worked at Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. He was a top adviser to the coalition's main political strategist.

But wait,.. so what, how does that have anything to do with W's connection to the religion, and his Religious Advisor position?

The Evangelical Right has long has a political agenda.

In the 2000 election, Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition turned out millions of votes in key states.

Now guys, while i agree, Natoma bashing can be fun, lets not forget the facts. Religion has always played a strong role in government, but its power/influence has always been held at bay by the whole Sepration of Chruch and State deal. The current administration is taking many steps to blur that seperation, and clearly this path is being influenced by the Evangelical Right.

So maybe it would be more appropriate to say that the Religious Advisor to the President is not one person, but instead a large, influential, highly motivated group of people we fondly call The religious Right.

stvn

 

What's the difference?

of course...

Agreed.

And Bush has many advisors....and Bush routinely agrees and disagrees with each of them.

Yes, we've had discussions on this in the past. Interesting the lengths taken to ensure it is NOT violating separation of Church and State.

Right...with the specific guidelines that the effects of the money can't be denied to anyone based on religious criteria. A Christian church receiving the money can not use it in such a way that the beneficiaries are descriminated against.

A Jewish Temple can use the money to help a "food drive" or soup kitchen, for example, but the programs must be open to anyone, not just Jews.

 

I have no idea, i dont read either

Quite true in theory, but ...

The Department of Health and Human Services has named several dozen groups that it's funding under the faith-based program. Every religious group on the list is Christian, except for a couple of 'interfaith' groups. You won't find a uniquely Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist center among them. You will find Pat Robertson's though.

But while they may take efforts to ensure that no religion is left out, and that descisions are not based on religious criteria, the fact remains it is a very very slippery slope.

And really, its not so clean cut, there are tons of loopholes, like Passive Involvement.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.03/news10.charitable.html

The edges are blurred all over the place, take this one for instance:

Faith Partners. It tries to help welfare families around Colorado Springs become self-sufficient. Faith Partners gets a $118,000 a year in taxpayers' money. And they'll tell you upfront they're a Christian organization.

hmmm,.. slippery slippery slippery.

Here is an excellent link giving many sides to the issue.

http://pewforum.org/faith-based-initiatives/

Becuase thats what they are called. They are not the Religious Left (which i imagine would be made up of atheists, sodimites, devil worshippers and other such heathens ). They are called the Religious Right because their politics are very "right wing". I am not sure why i am having to explain this one.

They aren't, which is exactly my point, and i thank you for driving it home.



But when Boeing lobbys in DC, its cause they want them to buy airplanes from them.

When Pfizer lobbys in DC, its cause they want the FDA to loosen its standards, ahem i mean regulations.

But when the Religious Right/Evangelical Right/Bible Bangers lobby in DC, its for the hearts, minds and most importantly the souls of the American people.

If i remember correctly, one of fundemntal reasons the US of A come about in the first place was that come people (Bible Banging religious extremists, a.k.a Puritans) were looking to get out from under the thumb of the English. Why? Well, because they felt that the powerful religious leaders of the time, had way to much influence on the current government, and were abusing it to persecute (or at least treat unkindly) said Puritans.

Funny turn of events isnt it?

Oliver Cromwell, were are you when we need you??

-stvn

 

Why is the government funding religious organizations at all? There are calls to stop funding for the Arts because it funds art that could easily be considered offensive to the very same taxpayers that are footing the bill. So why then is it 'ok' to fund religious organizations that easily could offend others?

Do I mistate the argument against funding the arts? Please clarify if so.

 

What difference does that make? Bush can't force anyone to sign up for the program, control who asks for funds, or control who agrees to the terms of compliance.

Fact nothing. Your opinion? Sure.

Because you seemd to be talking in a formal tone. In other words, we don't say the Union lobby is the "Unionized Left". It's the "Unions."

It's "religions."

So whoever disagreed with that? Nice to see you drive a point home that I never disagreed with...good for you.

They want money or more control.

They want money or more control.

No, directly or indirectly....they want money or more control, just like everyone else.

 

With the faith based initiative, it's because many of these religious organizations are better equipped and already have the local infrastructure in place to apply funds in a meaningful way.

 

Well this is not what I expected to see, but I have a question, does this mean that if they have a soup kitchen in a predominetly Jewish neighborhood it is illegal? I am curouis btw.

Also I think that Denmark has a thing where you tell the government to give a certain percentage of your taxes to the charity of your choice, which includes certain churches. Is this true? I figured our European friends would know the answer.

 

Sorry Joe, thats a figure of speech. I should have used it more carefully, although i thought since i wasnt Natoma, i could get away without having every word i use scrutinized to that degree.

Although i do find it hard to beleive that anyone would not see governmental funding of religious organizations without very well laid out and stictly enforced guidelines as a slipperly slope. But just as i am entitled to my opinions, so are you.

But i did not mean "religions" i meant the group which has been dubbed,.. "The Religious Right". It being a proper name, i felt capitalization was approriate.

Read it again, i was thanking you for clarifying my point, a point which we obviously agreed upon. It was not a slight against you in anyway. While i may use saracasm at times, this was not one of them.

Yes, but if Boeing make planes, their control is limited. If Pfizer makes drugs, their control too is limited (unless they get that mind-control drug working, in which case we are all f**ked anyway).

But the the agenda of the "Religious Right" (proper name) is to convert people to their way of thinking. I will dig up my quote once more:

Now the 80's are over, but i would bet that these 3 priorities remain.

If you look over the history of modern western organized religion, you will see that it very closely follows the history of politics. But that is a discussion for another forum. (feel free if you wanna start that up, i could use with a good brawl).

-stvn

 

So true, as a prior recipient of Govt. aid i can tell you that the system as a whole is not only flawed, but in shambles. Religious organizations are much better equiped (which i can vouch for as well, as my father-in-law is a minister at the local church).

BUT, the issue most people have with the faith based initiative is not that the government is funding religious organizations. The govt has a long history of working with religious organizations/charities to help bolster their programs in the community.

The issue is the relaxation of the rules sorrounding the faith based initiative. Which allow for churches to build dual-purpose structures (its a church, its a soup kitchen, its a church, its a soup kitchen), and do not impose rules on the hiring practices of said organizations (if i was a devil-worshipping-sodimite i could not get a job with an evangelical organization even if they get federal $$ and that federal $$ was what was going to pay my salary), and lack of rules around passive involvement (we wont make you pray and come to church, but we can pray all around you and hold service in the same room).

Its a tricky issue, and one that is not getting enough debate i think.

(my opinion Joe, nothing more)


-stvn

 

No, it is not illegal, if only Jews come to your Jewish soup kitchen, that is obviously something that you cannot control.

But if some gentile walked in off the street, they would have to serve them.

That is if they are getting federal funds to help run the soup kitchen.

-stvn