2007-09-23 16:25:08 · 14 answers · asked by poopie 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The government is totally incompetent, so whenever a government function can be done by a private organization, that'll be better. Just look at schools. Plus, with churches people aren't forced to contribute if they don't want to.
2007-09-23 16:34:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most churches I know will work with any person that comes in for help. It is not usually about pushing their religion or forcing them to confess or convert to get help, although I am sure that some will not help without that. Most chruches work with them to try and determine what their true needs are and, if the help will truly benefit the person or simply enable them. That usually means that after the third or fourth time the person has lied to them concerning why they have no money or what they are spending it on, the church cuts them off. That is different from the government where you don't have to show up again for a long time and the money comes to you. The government doesn't understand that some people have to hit the botttom hard enough so that the next time they request help, they truly intend to change their behaviors.
2007-09-23 16:39:07 · answer #2 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
for one, the cost of this action is provided through voluntary donations not tax dollars. Second, who else knows how to get the most for their dollar? If you have seen what the government spends on some things, you would not have to ask. Churches and non-profits are in the business of helping others at the lowest cost and best value, on the other hand the government only believes in handing out money without concern of cost, or a person best interest, or even training a person how to best spend the funding.
2007-09-23 16:29:24 · answer #3 · answered by julvrug 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I found your wording to be a little confusing, but I assume that you mean the advantages of being a recipient of church-based assistance vs government assistance.
Help is help, no matter where it comes from, yes?
btw: Probably most charitable organizations from food pantries to food stamp offices have a database, so you can't really receive multiple donations. We should only take what we need and leave the rest for others less fortunate than ourselves.
2007-09-23 16:32:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is always better to have policy control on a local basis. With the Federal government trying to administer social programs, the result is fraud and waste.
2007-09-23 16:50:33 · answer #5 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Churches deal with individuals for free, Government operates for profit and works on the macro scale.
2007-09-23 16:29:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The money comes from private and untaxed sources, as opposed to the tax dollars of the poor and middle class. There is less bureaucracy and red tape in determining who is needy. Fat-cat government officials can't pay themselves a portion of the money that is collected. Churches and those who represent them have a moral standard, not a utilitarian one.
2007-09-23 16:30:14 · answer #7 · answered by slushsledelephant 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There aren't any.. Tax the chuches and use the money to let the govt help the homeless.
2007-09-23 16:49:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
none...zero...nada
That being said, I help organize a food drive for the homeless around the holidays at my church (they didn't have one before) and it's grown every year...it's too complicated to go into here but it's been my experience that churches are not charity organizations
2007-09-23 16:30:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
the churches are more"hands on" and would be more able to see a con.
2007-09-23 16:41:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋