|
|
|
Reluctant Prophet
New Member
13 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2004 : 09:09:03 [Permalink]
|
I did not say that I wanted this this administration, or any other administration involved. I am simply saying they should level the playing feild, and allow religious charities access to money that goes elsewhere. Services provided should be regulated as any other or organization that provides these services.
I used to be a paramedic. I was in and out of nursing homes that had many of the same violations as Teen Challenge had, plus many other more serious problems, including patterns of physical and mental abuse that were ignored by administrators, sexual abuse, non-ambulatory patients on above ground floors with no elevators , serious neglect, medication errors, medication thievery through substitution, many ignorant but liscenced practitioners, and downright nasty, stinky, buggy, enviornments.
I grew up near a Teen Challenge. It did many wonderful things for many people, and continues to do so today. Unfortunatly, being in Ohio, it dosen't get federal funds, unless something has changed. I know longer live in Ohio. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2004 : 09:30:29 [Permalink]
|
Reluctant Prophet wrote:quote:
I did not say that I wanted this this administration, or any other administration involved. I am simply saying they should level the playing feild, and allow religious charities access to money that goes elsewhere.
Then truly level it: eliminate governmental funding of charities, period. It'd lower our taxes, as well as end the controversy over Federally-funded faith-based initiatives. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2004 : 12:17:44 [Permalink]
|
My point, Mr Prophet, is that faith based programs that recieve federal money should be required (at a minimum) to meet the same criteria that their secular counterparts do.
The faith based initiative program Bush has implemented ALSO has ZERO oversight for how the money these alleged charities get is used. It is a violation of federal law for federal dollars to be used to promote any religion. As it is now, we're giving them money and trusting them not to violate any laws.
And... the fact that I could be denied a job that I provide the funds for when I pay my taxes, because I don't have the same religious beliefs... is so wrong it's not funny.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Reluctant Prophet
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2004 : 21:19:50 [Permalink]
|
Dave W Wrote:
quote:
Then truly level it: eliminate governmental funding of charities, period. It'd lower our taxes, as well as end the controversy over Federally-funded faith-based initiatives.
Amen. I am semi-libertaarian at heart. Government has no business giving tax dollars to charity. But as long as tax dollars are used for any purpose, the state should not be able to discriminate. This leads to another point of discord.
Dude wrote:
quote:
And... the fact that I could be denied a job that I provide the funds for when I pay my taxes, because I don't have the same religious beliefs... is so wrong it's not funny.
I feel your pain. Nothing like the sting of affirmative action either.
As I stated before, but maybe not clearly enough. Services provided by these charities should be regulated as any other or organization that provides the same services. This should be a requirement whether the charity receives tax dollars or not. I do not mean to be condecending in repeating the first part. It has been a few years since I have participated in written discussions.
The people we curently entrust this money to, must also be bought up to standard. |
| Edited by - Reluctant Prophet on 07/04/2004 21:21:54 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 09:39:36 [Permalink]
|
That Christians want the playing field leveled amuses me. The default position has long been to allow Christians to practice their religion as they see fit, within the confines of the law. Christians are hardly put upon.
Government must fund charities, guys. The charities can't fill the needs even WITH government help; without that help, our society would suffer evn more. The idea that if we pay less in taxes, we'd suddenly start giving more to charity is improbable at best and laughable at worst. Besides, some services should be implemented with government oversight and control.
The bulk of my career has been in non-profits. The lack of money (compared with the private companies I've worked for the last few years) in the non-profit sector is startling. We had to fund raise (!?) for our Christmas parties at the HMO I worked in. Bonuses were virtually unheard of for line staff; raises were rare among all staff.
I repeat: the government should not fund religious activities. If a religious institution wants to do non-religious work, then it can bloody well stop the religious crap and focus on the REAL work.
I'm overdue for a run because this is making me cranky. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 11:00:52 [Permalink]
|
Renae wrote:quote:
Government must fund charities, guys. The charities can't fill the needs even WITH government help; without that help, our society would suffer evn more.
Well, there are two ways to truly level the field among private charities. Either publicly fund none of them, or fully fund all of them. Is either option acceptable? What does it mean to "fully fund" a charity, anyway? Is there a point at which more money is simply "extra," or is it the case that there will always be a use for more cash? At what point will all "needs" be met?quote:
The idea that if we pay less in taxes, we'd suddenly start giving more to charity is improbable at best and laughable at worst.
I don't think anyone promoted that idea. As I see it, people will give to charities when they see results from those charities, or simply "believe in" their missions strongly enough. Or, when giving is easy, as it is by dropping one's change into a "Ronald McDonald House" box after getting fast food.
On the other hand, should people be forced - through taxes - to fund charities they may have moral, ethical or doctrinal differences with? What if the KKK started a homeless shelter which met the government's definition of a fundable charity, but which forced the users of the shelters to listen to lectures about whites' racial superiority? Shouldn't the citizens, in such a case, be allowed to petition the government to change the laws to stop funding for some particular organization? If so, we're back to square one, in which some charities will be Federally funded, and others won't.quote:
Besides, some services should be implemented with government oversight and control.
Why not just make them government services? I mean, we are talking about private charities here. Let's let the government do all of the feeding of the hungry, the housing of those without homes, the job placement, etc. I mean, actually prohibit organizations from doing so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Reluctant Prophet
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 13:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Dave W wrote:quote:
As I see it, people will give to charities when they see results from those charities, or simply "believe in" their missions strongly enough. Or, when giving is easy, as it is by dropping one's change into a "Ronald McDonald House" box after getting fast food.
Charity thats charity, and not robbing Peter to pay Paul. What a novel idea.  . Some people will not give to charity, but that should be their choice.
Federally funded Christmas parties should not occur whatsoever- for the big-wigs, or for the line workers, in charaties or business. Maybe I am wrong here as Christ seems to have been removed from Christmas for too many people, but aren't these parties a way of pushing Christianity?
Doctirnal difirence is exactly the meassure I use when I donate to charity. I do not give to charities where the money they are given is used to pay CEO's and others fat salaries. To listen to them state that they work hard, and should be able to make as much as other CEO's is ludicrous. It's charity. It should exisit for the soul purpose of providing the most efficient means of getting the resources to the people who need it. Giving millions of dollars, tax dollars or donated dollars, to a small number of people to run the charity, or spending the charity more money to give a grant then then the money they end up granting seems like a waste of my charitable dollars, whether I personaly give them money, or the state does.
Charity should not be big business, and should not be funded with tax dollars. If it is, however, then the government should not be able to discriminate against who it is given to beyond assuring that they meet the same standards as any other charity or business.
From http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Faith_Healing.asp?sitearea=ETO
quote:
... faith healing may promote peace of mind, reduce stress, relieve pain and anxiety, and strengthen the will to live.
or http://www.cancer.org/docroot/COM/content/div_TX/COM_5_1x_Fort_Worth_Church_Connection.asp?sitearea=COM
quote:
Church Connection has forged a powerful link between faith and hope in the community's fight against cancer. Church Connection reaches out to these people, who then reach out to others. As compassionate ambassadors....
or several other of the 207 results after using 'faith' to search the American Cancer Societies articles.
True, they are not pushing a faith, but neither do a lot of faith based charities.
I wonder how many people walk into a Salvation Army store not knowing that it is a Christian organization. When I helped due disaster services for them, the vouchers I handed out for a hotel stay, or food, or clothing, had no refrence to religion. The classes I attended offered by them had no refrence to religion. I was not even asked my religious prefrence when I volunteered.
Discrimination based on, or in the name of, religion is unconstitutional, whether it is that way in practice or not. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 15:38:01 [Permalink]
|
Did I mention that these faith based initiatives are implemented ONLY by executive order? Bush couldn't get them through congress even with bipartisan sponsorship and support of the bill. So we just get them rammed down our throats. With no congressional oversight, no regulation, and a 12 page justification for faith based discrimination.
Please allow me to say.... fuck that.
No taxation without representation, and no spending my tax dollars without my representation being heard. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 15:50:48 [Permalink]
|
Relucant Prophet wrote:quote:
True, they are not pushing a faith, but neither do a lot of faith based charities.
And not the ACS, in particular. They're just telling it like it is, actually. For example, in the quote you provide from the faith-healing article, it's important to note that what you've elided is the word "however," following a summary that faith healing hasn't be shown to be a worthwhile treatment for cancer. Faith, though, can be important, for some, for the things listed. The ACS makes the distinction. They also go on to say,One review published in 1998 looked at 172 cases of fatalities among children treated by faith healing instead of conventional methods. These researchers found that if conventional treatment had been given, the survival rate for these children could have exceeded 90%, with the remainder of the children also having a good chance of survival. One of the things the ACS and other medically-oriented organizations faces is the hassle of having to be "open" to things which are considered by many (or most) to be nonsense. They can't afford to alienate any potential donors by openly saying, "faith healing is a bunch of crap." They simply, instead, present what facts they know.
Secondly, except for the "Church Connection" and faith-healing articles, are any of the other 207 hits (with many duplications) not personal stories or links to personal stories? I sampled many of them, and found none which weren't "my battle with cancer" testimonials, which included lines like, "I don't think I would have come through this without my faith." Oh, the User Agreement is not a personal story:You acknowledge and agree that ACS may preserve Content and may also disclose Content if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process; (b) enforce the User Agreement; (c) respond to claims that any Content violates the rights of third-parties; or (d) protect the rights, property, or personal safety of ACS, its users and the public. (Emphasis mine.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Reluctant Prophet
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 17:14:25 [Permalink]
|
Ah, yes, was a bit lazy of me, and misleading. My apologies.
I was not trying to promote 'faith healing' in any way, shape, or form. I believe, from experience and common sense, that faith healing alone is a very bad idea. But I also concede that faith has a place in healing.
The point I am trying to make (however poorly) is that the American Cancer Society, whose waste of charity I loath, desrves not a dime of money if the Salvation Army, or St. Vincent de Paul deserve none. Some people think the mere mention of faith is enough to exclude a charity from money, in which case the ACS should be excluded.
I am really out of practice here. I will try to make my arguements more coherent.
As far as the executive order goes, Dude put my feelings into fewer words then I would have, and perfectly coherently. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
