Faith-Based Programs.

I just discovered that even a surprising number of Democrats support these. There is a lot of hypocrisy in those figures, but I am curious as to what everyones thoughts on this are. Do you support federal funding of such programs, or do you oppose it? Why?

If “faith-based” programs want to provide social services, they can use their own money. The government has its own programs it could waste money on through ruthless inefficiency.

I don’t have a problem with these programs receiving some federal funding. I did some
research and tried to find the figures for the social services where I live and was unable to
get the data. I don’t think these programs should rely on government funding. Where I
live, AA and NA wouldn’t exist if it weren’t provided by the Christian Church.

Oh wow… I am actually a little surprised by that…

Currently, 69% of Americans say they favor allowing churches and other houses of worship, along with other organizations, to apply for government funding to provide social services such as job training or drug treatment counseling.

Hm… I think it could be a problem since the money could be used in other measures besides what they are provided for… not to mention this will increase the church’s power in state (I think?) and overall sounds like bad idea…

This actually shows a good deal of bias in America toward Muslims and some other types of religions…

And a majority (52%) opposes permitting Muslim mosques to be eligible for such funding

Seriously, do people really think all Muslims are just maniac terrorists?? Why can some religious groups get funding and not others?? This is ridiculous (though I am not sure whether any religious groups get funding by government or not…)

Where I live, AA and NA wouldn’t exist if it weren’t provided by the Christian Church.

I’m thinking though, shouldn’t that be handled at the state level, or even by the local town?

This actually shows a good deal of bias in America toward Muslims and some other types of religions…

Yeah, that was what I meant by hypocrisy.

though I am not sure whether any religious groups get funding by government or not…

Oh, faith-based projects exist. They were one of the big achievements of Bush, and Obama has expressed support of them as well.

They are for a public service, so I am for it. Who cares if a church helps people? However, that 52% against mosques is pretty bad.

Originally posted by 1132:

They are for a public service, so I am for it. Who cares if a church helps people? However, that 52% against mosques is pretty bad.

Yes but they might launder money away and still say it is for public service. It isn’t like religion has a good history of uncorrupted people…

Oh, faith-based projects exist. They were one of the big achievements of Bush, and Obama has expressed support of them as well.

Wait I am not sure how this works.. do the government send them money or is it locally?

Yes but they might launder money away and still say it is for public service. It isn’t like religion has a good history of uncorrupted people…

So? That could happen with the government. The most corrupt times for major Christian religions was back in the medieval ages. I could say Germany will attack the world because it has happened twice in the past, but the situations are totally different nowadays.

Wait I am not sure how this works.. do the government send them money or is it locally?

This is money coming from the federal level. It might be a bit confusing, but I think this page covers most of the programs.

Our government should never, ever give money to any religion.

If the religion is spending this money completely and only on public service programs then I guess I support it. Public service seems like one of the best things the government could spend it’s money on, imo.

I’m not sure why people would be surprised that Obama supports this, by the way, it makes sense to me.

First time I read the title I thought it said “Faith based pogroms” turns out the thread is about something entirely different than I expected.

As long as the organization can prove it’s using the money on what it requests it for, I don’t see a problem with the government giving it to any organization.

I’m not sure why people would be surprised that Obama supports this

Democrats are usually the ones drawing the line when it comes to religious issues.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

I’m not sure why people would be surprised that Obama supports this

Democrats are usually the ones drawing the line when it comes to religious issues.

Well, yeah, I am surprised that democrats support it more than republicans. But if somebody were to ask me to guess whether Obama supports it or not, I would assume he did.

But it’s definitely something you would assume more from a republican, I suppose. ;P

First time I read the title I thought it said “Faith based pogroms” turns out the thread is about something entirely different than I expected.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Where I live, AA and NA wouldn’t exist if it weren’t provided by the Christian Church.

I’m thinking though, shouldn’t that be handled at the state level, or even by the local town?

---

It should be handled that way, but where I live it isn’t. I give credit to the church for
providing these programs. The way IL is now, with our governors making our license plates,
it’s a wonder state workers still get a paycheck. These programs seem to always be at the
top of the budget cut list.

A religious organization is willing to do the service for cheaper than secular organizations in my experience. The kind of fervor you get from religious activists is harder to find in a secular workforce, as well. I don’t mind any institution (as long as it’s not a cult) undertaking the responsibility and I don’t think it’s a bad thing to fund someone willing to do the work.

At a glance, I would be opposed to such federal spending, since church and state should be wholly separated, etc. etc. However, the fact that one must swear on the Bible in court shows that no such bounds are impenetrable.

one must swear on the Bible in court

Actually you don’t have to, but it is telling that it is the default option.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

one must swear on the Bible in court

Actually you don’t have to, but it is telling that it is the default option.

I actually had no idea you could simply affirm to tell the truth, rather than use a religious text. Thanks, I learned something today. :D

You can bring your own book to swear on, but your choice might have an effect on the jury.

EDIT: Not that you have to swear on a book at all, it’s just not forbidden.

Originally posted by BombCog:

You can bring your own book to swear on, but your choice might have an effect on the jury.

EDIT: Not that you have to swear on a book at all, it’s just not forbidden.

Does it have to be religious text or can it be something like Communist Manifesto? (though I probably may be interrogated…)

Well books of any sort are going out of style, mainly you just raise your hand and affirm to tell the truth these days.

I think that this is a bad idea, I mean there are already many religious organizations that get billions each year (such as prayer hour).