What do you think about Bush's faith-based initiatives?

Question

violates separation of church and state?

Or are you ok with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/white_house...

your take please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives

better link

Answer 1

He can prance around on the white house lawn buck naked with a cowboy hat and a shot gun aiming at squirells for all I care as long as my tax dollars dont go to a church for anything.

Answer 2

It was good in theory. Give churches direct money to distribute aid to the needy. The problem is that ALL government money comes with strings attached. Many churches run soup kitchens that preach while people eat. I bet the ALCU would have a fit knowing "public" money was supporting religion. It is a shame though because the churches (as long as they are honest) could feed people more cost effectively than the government. Every bit of gov't aid has to have a bureaucracy with it. Our current aid set up gets $1 to the need for every $6 spent. That's not a good return on investment. Churches would be able to put forward 90 cents or more of every dollar to the needy. So, I understand the concept but don't think its good in practice.

Answer 3

they are a violation of church and state if any of the organizations try to force their religion on anyone they're helping or runs bible study classes or similar. otherwise,. I think they're actually a good idea, as some of the best relief and aid groups either are or started as Faith based (salvation army, urban Ministry, you get the picture)

however, I'm not happy about funding for them replacing funding of traditional programs. We should be increasing funding to both.

Answer 4

I personally have no problem with it. I believe local churches can certainly address the needs of their community MUCH better than a bunch of politicians in DC can. Plus, it would eliminate the bureaucratic BS that ties up the funding to government programs.

Answer 5

I am completely against the faith -based initiatives.This President doesn't understand that there must be a complete and absolute separation between church and state.I fear the conservative wing of the Republican Party wants to adopt a national religion.

Answer 6

I don't object to faith based initiatives in principle, but anyone taking money from the government must not use that money in pursuance of furthering their religious dogma.

Answer 7

Just another scam to funnel federal money to only people who support him. The last time I checked, not one of the grants had gone to a non-Christian religion; they usually cover themselves better than that by sprinkling just a little money around to ones they don't support, but they're so arrogant now, they don't care because most people don't bother to check. They like to link this program to their lack of support for social programs by saying that these 'local' charities do a better job; just another sham to cut social programs and give money to their friends, which pretty much sums up their entire philosophy for government.

Answer 8

It was a charade designed to appear that he supported faith-based initiatives, and realistically did nothing for that issue.

Organizations like Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Habitat for Humanity and other faith-based groups received government funds long before GWB.

So, it never really happened, and the concept stinks because it taints faith with government funds and the restrictions associated with it.

Answer 9

Good idea. There aren't a whole lot of orphanages run by atheists.

Answer 10

Well since it has been recently proven that Right wing evangelicals are far more generous with their money than secular liberals regardless of income, I say give them a shot.