Is Bush weaseling out?

[Joe DeFuria]

You'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical that this position exists, and is part of the "administration".

I can't find it anywhere on google. Their position is not noted on any of their biographies.

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

 

[Stvn]

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.

I know firsthand. I know what faith can mean in somebody's life. That's why I remind people I'm just a humble sinner who sought redemption.

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.

No government policy can put hope in people's hearts or a sense of purpose in people's lives. That is done when someone, some good soul puts an arm around a neighbor and says, "God loves you, and I love you, and you can count on us both."

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.

But the needs of our country are urgent. And as President I have an authority I intend to use.

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.

We must begin to literally penetrate every area of society! Yes! Even the political area!

We have three priorities in the 1980s: Number one, get people converted to Christ; number two, get them baptized; number three, get them registered to vote.

I believe that if we carry this five part strategy out, with diligence and effectiveness, I think that we will be the most powerful political force in the next decade

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

Christians founded this nation, they built this nation, and for three hundred years they governed this nation. We can govern again!

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

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Russ, Joe,

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

What's the difference?

Clearly Natoma is wrong in that there is no official position of "Religious Advisor to the President"

of course...

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?

Agreed.

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

The Faith Based Initiatives program...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Um, why the religious "right"?

And how is that group any different than being "influenced by large, influential, highly-motivated groups of people we call every other lobbyist group on the planet?"

 

[Stvn]

Russ, Joe,

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

What's the difference?

I have no idea, i dont read either

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.

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.

I am pleased to announce that Operation Blessing is one of the recipients from the President's faith-based fund!

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.

Well, the facts speak for themselves. Under the Bush Faith-Based Initiative, a faith-based group associated with Bob Jones University, known for its bias against Jews and Catholics could literally take tax dollars to run a soup kitchen and put out a sign that says, "No Jews or Catholics need apply here for this federally-funded job." Under this program, basically women could be denied federally-funded jobs for which they're completely qualified simply because the faith-based group that received a million-dollar grant said, "Our faith says that women should be at home, not in the workplace."

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 lack of safeguards against requiring passive involvement in religious activities is "a very real concern," said Mark Pelavin, associate director of the Religious Action Center.

Pelavin described a hypothetical scenario in which a federally funded soup kitchen may require a hungry client to listen to a prayer offered at the table before eating. "That is deeply disturbing, the idea that someone has to sit through a prayer they might find anathema before receiving government social services," he said.

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.

We are Christ centered. We are based in the church. But this isn't about an evangelical effort. That's the part that people, I think get confused. We're not going out to help these families so that in return for them coming to church. This is a vehicle for the church to get people outside the four walls of the church into the community where they could use their faith to produce hope and purpose in the lives of the people we wanted to serve.

hmmm,.. slippery slippery slippery.

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

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

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.

Um, why the religious "right"?

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.

And how is that group any different than being "influenced by large, influential, highly-motivated groups of people we call every other lobbyist group on the planet?"

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

 

[Ty]

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.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

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.

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.

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.

Fact nothing. Your opinion? Sure.

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.

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."

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

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

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

They want money or more control.

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

They want money or more control.

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.

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

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Why is the government funding religious organizations at all?

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.

 

[Sxotty]

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.

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.

 

[Stvn]

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.

Fact nothing. Your opinion? Sure.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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

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.

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

They want money or more control.

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

They want money or more control.

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.

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

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:

We have three priorities in the 1980s: Number one, get people converted to Christ; number two, get them baptized; number three, get them registered to vote.

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

 

[Stvn]

Why is the government funding religious organizations at all?

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.

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

 

[Stvn]

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.

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