Another politician endorses Gov't funding of faith based initiatives

Remove all ads!

This one might suprise some.

Someone explain how this differs form Bush's stances on faith based initiatives?

The left isn't going to like this article, but then it is buried in the Boston Globe, and the liberal press will make sure it doesn't get any airtime, so it doesn't really matter anyway.

[ January 21, 2005, 17:08: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

I didn't see that one coming.

Well the difference is (imho), I think Georgie actually stands behind his faith, and Hilary is probably just spouting a load of hooey.

Maybe the start of an image she'd like people to think about her by '08?

 

Well, at least she doesn't believe that God spoke to her and told her to invade a foreign country.

But seriously, I don't see the point. Was anyone really arguing against this? If anything, it seems the only talk concerning the use of "faith" in the public arena during the elections was the fact that Kerry was Catholic. I know many people have blasted Bush for blurring the line between Church and state, but really, that never became a major issue during the elections...

 

There are many people arguing against this as they believe it violates the separation of church and state.

I would like to see the quote where Bush states that God spoke to him and told him to invade Iraq. That is a new one for me. This statement seems a bit slanderous, and also seems to be out of your character for you Aldeth.

Of course I offer my deepest apologies if such a statement was made.

 

He has clearly stated that he think he is chosen by god to be president. His exact phrasing is a bit humbler than that but it is the geist of it. I dont have a link handy but I have heard it and seen it and seen an interview with the reverend to whom Bush uttered it to.

 

So basically he said that he believes that god put him on earth to be President, and this is interpreted to mean that he believes that god not only speaks to him, but told him to invade Iraq?

 

It wasn't a verbatim quote DW. I thought the beginning of the following sentence that I wrote, "But seriously," indicated that I wasn't completely serious about what had preceeded it.

That was the other point I was trying to make. If people truly had a problem with it, a bigger deal would have been made out of it in the weeks and months preceeding the election, where many issues are blown out of proportion. As it turned out, this topic barely got a peep during the whole campaign, so I think in most people's minds this is a marginal issue.

 

Here ya go:

Fri., January 21, 2005 www.haaretz.com

I can't back up the validity of the article of course, but its been pretty spammed across the internet (the quote that is).

Another really interesting one:

This one was from a meeting a group of Old Order Amish during his visit to Lancaster County [Pennsylvania] (??), its been quoted all over the internet, but the actual link is to a registered only site. So I can't verify (I'm not willing to register...). It looks to me like an ordinary local paper though. But you can read an excerpt here:
www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com At a glance, this source is more than a little biased though.

And for sheer bizarreness:

"George W. Bush Quotations in Which the Words "God" or "The Almighty" or "The Almighty God" Are Replaced by Famous Names Chosen at Random From the '80s Edition of Trivial Pursuit."
www.mcsweeneys.net Totally irrelevant of course, but entertaining

 

Interesting stuff, Darkwolf. I have a couple of theories on this.

1. Populism. Religion worked for Dubya (personally and politically), so why not show how inclusive the left can be by embracing a positive faith-based violence reduction program.

2. Effectiveness. Anyone with any experience in crime prevention will tell you that if a program works once, it's worth trying again somewhere else.

Or (most likely)...

3. Balancing act. Rejecting the notion of faith and the democratic state as antithetical to each other, you can both make a positive impact on believers by telling them that their beliefs can make a difference and that they should be able to express them, while also addressing the problem of youth violence. The lefties are appeased by the track record of the program and its limited scope of operation, while the Christian right feels vindicated and will potentially make them more receptive to the Democrats - and Clinton in particular. An excellent political move by HRC, I think.

I remember reading a couple of God-quotes from Bush. My personal favourite was, "I believe God wants me to be President." A head of state who says that should be viewed with suspicion, since they are attempting to outsource accountability. Who knows, if something really terrible happens out of the invasion of Iraq (read: something happens to Americans in the US because of it), we may even hear the words I've been waiting for from US athletes and politicians all my academic life...

"God said for me to drop the ball, folks..."

 

There's more to religeon than a set of commandments or a history lesson. There is counsel on how to live, and how to care for the needy. The teachings of Religeon shouldn't be lightly dismissed...

 

I agree wholeheartedly, Gnarfflinger. Faith and religion have inspired some of the greatest things humanity has ever done, and if it can ease tensions or reduce crime, then I'm all for it. If more of us Christians lived the Christian message of the New Testament. Remember, though, that a reliance on it has led to some of the greatest atrocities in history.

Unfortunately, depending on your measure of what it is to be a "good" Christian, a deplorably large number of people seem to think that invading a foreign country on a demonstrably false pretext is less damning than being pro-choice. So are giving tax cuts to the rich when you are sending the children of the poor to Iraq.

 

It's good to see that you are now a spokesperson for the left, DW. Actually, I don't see where the "left" would have a problem with it, unless it would violate a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Some will argue against this because of the "Establishment Clause" that prevents the federal government from establishing and funding a particular religious doctrine. You may want to take a closer look at how these kinds of programs have been funded in the past, and how they are being funded under King George - you may find a difference. But you are right, there are critics, but I'm not sure if they are on the left, or just individuals who value the Constitution.

This is a large expansion of the power of the federal government, but IMO, it is government acting as a "necessary" force for good. As such, I really don't have a serious problem with it. However, anytime the scope of federal power is expanded, especially in this degree, it is a pretty good idea to keep a close scrutiny on such actions.

Perhaps they were "praying" for more votes, which they indeed received.

 

ArtE, sorry, but I have to differ with your selective quoting, the full sentence is:

This is called hearsay. When someone can find this widely publicized quote directly reported (by a news agency that doesn't owe its allegiance to Middle Eastern funding) I will be happy to concede the point. It is funny that everyone knows he said it, but no one can find a transcript, CNN, or CSPAN article that mentions it.

In regards to the other quote ("I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job"), this is a basic tenant of Christianity. We are all children of god, so if we are following gods will, he is "speaking" through us, it is a figure of speech that just means that the Christian believes he/she is doing what they believe god would want them to. It certainly does not indicate that a person is in need of analysis for hallucinations or some other mental disorder by which they think god is directly speaking to them. I do wonder about the paranoia that seems to revolve around the Presidents religious beliefs though.

NS,

I agree with you right up until your last paragraph. As I remember, Bush made that statement before the election, and it was a way of demonstrating his faith, i.e. “if god wants be to be President, I will be, if not, I will move on”. I can't argue with your statement that this could be a cause for concern, but I haven't seen any additional quotes where Bush is stating that god told him to do anything, only that his beliefs are based upon christian principles, and that those principles are the basis for his morals, which of course influence what he backs and opposes. If that scares those of us who are not Christians, all I can say is, to bad for us, because this is a representative republic, the majority of which are Christians, and as long as we want to live here we have to accept that their values are going to show through in policy and legislature.

Chandos,

I am not really sure how my quote represents that I speak for the left. I believe that the "IMO" is implied on the beginning of the sentence you quote, but perhaps I should have been more explicit.

In regards to this being an expansion of gov't, I may be missing something, but I believe it is just the opposite. The gov't is taking money that it would have spent through its bureaucracy, and passing it instead to outside agencies. There will of course be a need to monitor and decide how to disperse this funding but this would exist anyway. I do see how this could be used as a staging event to get the gov't out of certain entitlements by slowly weaning these outside organization off of the federal nursing program to independence by forcing them to gather their own donations from citizens and busnesses.

Finally, I am not really sure what the changes in how these organizations are funded you are referring to are, perhaps if I were more enlightened in this regard I might agree with you. My understanding is that changes were implemented to allow faith based organizations to have an even footing with secular organizations, and the changes were probably not entirely equitable, but affirmative action in any form rarely is.

Sorry if those are not the changes of which you are speaking to.

 

No need to make it sound like I'm taking a personal stand on it. Like I said in the post, I can't back up the validity of any of it.

I was merely trying to find out the quote, or quotes that I think people were referring to.

I don't stand behind any of it.

 

It's good to know that Hillary will be running for President. But the question is really pretty simple. Of course faith-based initiatives are useful. Helping the disadvantaged, in whatever way you are able, can hardly be wrong. But the Constitution mandates the separation of church and state; government money cannot be used for this purpose, only private donations. Hillary is just pandering to the Radical Right; a gesture that won't help her a bit; she's way too high on their hit list.

 

I would think it's the recognition that for the next four years nothing but faith based initiatives are going to be funded by the Bush's administration anyway, while social ills will not go away.

Stressing faith-based initiatives to adress these ills, recognising this, is IMO born of necessity - it's maybe not what you want but better than nothing. Sen. Clinton is being pragmatic.

You can relax Darkwolf

Personally I have not really a problem with faith-based initiatives per se. In Germany we have a treaty with the catholic church which in return provides schools, hospitals, kindergardens and such. Under a comparable contract the protestants in Germany do the same things and receive public money for it. Both churches are equal here.

But we don't leave it there and have a secular aid sector, too.

What people in the US fear, and I think rightly so, is that Bush will abolish the non religious sector and tell people that they have the churches still. And that will likely mean less funds for the needy.

The problem with that is underlined in an exemplary way in this thread Aid for Tsunami victims on condition of conversion

 

Cernak,

Please identify which section of the Constitution mandates that church and state be separated.

Before you spend too much time trying to find it I will help out, it doesn't exist. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of an official, or state religion, but it never states that church and state must be entirely separate (IIRC this is in the first amendment).

If you would like to read a little about where this phrase was coined, I googled this up:

The Myth of the Separation of Church and State

Not being the Jeffersonian scholar that someone like Chandos is, I cannot speak to it being 100% accurate, but from my recollections of history from college and high school, I believe it to be relatively accurate in the facts it presents, and slightly biased in some of the opinions.

Knowing Chandos, he will be more than happy to read it and provide an expert opinion .

 

Well, where does it say in the Constitution that the government can give a billion dollars a year of taxpayer money from the US treasury to pay these guys? There are two ways that the Constituion can be read: One, that the federal government has ONLY the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. And the Constitution makes no provision for the federal government to give away money to religious organizations (Jefferson, Madison, Burr etc.)

Two: Another reading is that the federal government is not confined by its delegated powers but can act out of "implied" or necessary powers to achieve the public good (Hamilton, Washington, Adams).

But all these men were pragmatic in their approach to the issue of the Constitution's delegated powers. Jefferson had no problem using it for conducting the Louisiana Purchase. A strict reading of the Constitution gave Jefferson no such power, (at the time) yet consider the public good that came from his actions.

Edit: Sorry, I came to this point late. Maybe so, but I suspect not. This program is really going to grow. To go back a bit, FDR really expanded the scope of federal power with the New Deal, and it really mushroomed from there. The "modern" conservative movement grew out of opposition to this very kind of expansion. Barry Goldwater really became the touchstone for many conservatives who felt a resentment to this expansion of ferderal power. Ronald Reagan was a Goldwater disciple and he helped set the stage for welfare reform under Bill Clinton, which, (it appeared) put an end to federal expansion in this area.

The argument Goldwater conservatives used over and over was two-fold: One, the Constitution gave no power to the Federal government for welfare programs (the "big government" issue). And, second, an interesting argument based on the principle of representation: Welfare moms voted for Democrats because they received a welfare check. Hence, the Dems were thought to be using taxpayer money to buy their voters - minorities from urban areas who relied on welfare assistance.

Now, we have "faith-based" assistance; welfare with religious middle-men. Once the Dems looked over the results of the last election, they found that single moms in rural areas voted for Bush II. Why? Here it is: They get assistance from their churches in these areas. Their churches and clergy are their support groups, and these moms are influenced by the religious groups. The Bush government pays the clergy, they pay the moms, and Bush gets the votes. It's only a theory, but it is the old Goldwater argument, with a "left turn." But how can liberals and progressives argue against helping single moms? Never happened.

Darkwolf - To consider the problems of the Establishment clause will require much more time.

[ January 23, 2005, 07:07: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]