Faith Based Fraud

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by Southpaw, Jan 25, 2005.

  1. Southpaw

    Southpaw Provocateur aka Wallyburger Contributor

    Posts:
    33,648
    Likes Received:
    46
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    The urban swamp
    The Nation

    The Daily Outrage
    The Faith-Based Fraud
    01/24/2005 @ 10:55am permalink


    After its highly touted unveiling, President Bush's faith-based initiative has proceeded largely under the radar. But a lack of attention hasn't shielded the program's constitutional questionability, or its brutal effectiveness.

    In 2003--according to White House data reported by the Los Angeles Times--Bush doled out $1 billion to hundreds of faith-based groups through a little-noted executive order. More importantly, the Bush Administration used the grants to sway influential African-Americans in key battleground states and reward longtime political supporters at taxpayer expense.

    For example, after the Rev. Herb Lusk II delivered the invocation at the 2000 Republican convention, his Philadelphia church received $1 million in federal funds. Bishop Harold Ray, who offered the invocation at a rally for Dick Cheney in Palm Beach, Florida, got $1.7 million for his South Florida ministry. In 2002 Bush personally visited Milwaukee's Bishop Sedgwick Daniels--who voted for Clinton and Gore--and later awarded him a $1.5 million grant. This fall, Daniels's face appeared on Republican Party fliers in Wisconsin, endorsing Bush as a man who "shares our views."

    The faith-based initiatives likely played a crucial role in increasing Bush's take of the black vote, especially in targeted swing states. Funnily enough, the campaign held grant-writing workshops in St. Louis in September (when Missouri was still in play) and Miami in October.

    Moreover, it's unclear exactly how much money is going where. The recent White House data contains a caveat that it represents all grants. Even the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's cultish Unification Church has received funding. And House Republicans allegedly blocked Democrat Chet Edwards from investigating the money flow.

    When the initiative's first director, John DiIulio, resigned after six months on the job, he called White House policy-makers "Mayberry Machiavellis" who "consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue to its simplest, black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible."

    Bush plans to highlight the initiative in his State of the Union address and reintroduce the expanded legislation before the new Republican Congress. The number-one "Mayberry Machiavelli" keeps confusing holy work with partisan gain.
     
  2. Dback Jon

    Dback Jon Killer Snail Contributor

    Age:
    53
    Posts:
    39,306
    Likes Received:
    82
    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Scottsdale
    Almost like faith-based bribery.
     
  3. 40yearfan

    40yearfan DEFENSE!!!! Contributor

    Posts:
    34,603
    Likes Received:
    18
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ.
    Uhhh, just how much of the black vote did Bush get? Not very much from what I can recollect.

    Why is it when the Republicans give to minorities, it's bribery and when the Demos do it, it's out of the goodness of their hearts?
     
  4. Chaz

    Chaz observationist

    Posts:
    11,305
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Location:
    Wandering the Universe
    A true visionary of political bribery that Karl Rove.

    Clinton has to be kicking himself that he didn't think of this first. :D
     
  5. GreenCard

    GreenCard Registered User

    Posts:
    2,365
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Ooops, almost said because we all know Republicans don't have much goodness in their hearts but I did'nt.I am trying to quit,my best friend and my Son are republicans.
     
  6. CaptTurbo

    CaptTurbo Registered

    Age:
    108
    Posts:
    16,774
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Faith and Fraud?

    No way.

    You lie.

    Seriously?

    People would take advantage of other people using man made religion? no. You must be joshing me. And not the McCown type of joshing.
     
  7. Southpaw

    Southpaw Provocateur aka Wallyburger Contributor

    Posts:
    33,648
    Likes Received:
    46
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    The urban swamp
    Those are tax sourced funds, Not political contributions, you are attempting to rationalize away. There is a huge difference.
     
  8. CardLogic

    CardLogic .

    Posts:
    12,364
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2002
    Location:
    SE Valley
    I have no doubt that the dollars influenced the votes of a few...

    However, do you have any idea of what the, "tax sourced funds" were used for??? Making statements to suggest that the money went into the pockets of a few individuals in order to influence votes is fraudulent.

    The funding in question went to faith based charitable programs. Programs such as these typically provide "soup kitchens", homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation programs, etc.

    You know, the type of welfare programs that liberals so thoughtfully support! ;) But liberals would rather see the same dollars being spent in inefficient government based programs in which the majority of the money is wasted in bureaucratic administrative salaries, rather than to a faith based programs which have historically proven that a much higher percentage of the total program dollars reach the intended targets of such programs.
     
  9. nidan

    nidan Oscar Contributor

    Posts:
    21,912
    Likes Received:
    10
    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    I hate to burst your bubble but this is not entirerly true. I'm sure most of the money was spent on worthy causes as you say but a lot was not.

    If you start looking at the organizations who were funded with this many of them have have the mission to convert people to thier faith as their primary objective. Doing the charitable work is a means to that end. This is unacceptable, federal $$ being used to try and convert or convince them of the merits of christianity.

    If you are doing charitable work then fine but don't use the cash to try and get more bobies into your church.

    http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=43547
     
  10. CardLogic

    CardLogic .

    Posts:
    12,364
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2002
    Location:
    SE Valley
    Actually, I agree that when faith based groups accept federal funding that the work being done with that funding not be a means to forwarding the expansion of the faith itself.

    I think that it is possible for an organization to have a "secondary objective" and a desire to fullfill that second objective without pursuing their "primary objective" in the course of an activity designed for the secondary objective.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2005
  11. nidan

    nidan Oscar Contributor

    Posts:
    21,912
    Likes Received:
    10
    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Not exactly sure I follow primary/secondary thoughts but I also have no problem with religious organization provinding help to the needy. We've all given to the SA.

    It's just that if they are getting gov $$,then they should be providing the help that is being funded. The fact that the organization is religious in nature shouldn't come into it.

    One of the classic dodges in this area is the accounting switch. By taking funds to help their charitable activities, instead of increasing those activities, they shift funds from other sources away from the charity to the religious mission. This lets them claim the funding is all going to charity, when in fact it is a shell game.

    Bottom line, take the cash add it to the existing cash you use for charity do more good.
     
  12. nidan

    nidan Oscar Contributor

    Posts:
    21,912
    Likes Received:
    10
    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    I think I agree with this.
     
  13. CardLogic

    CardLogic .

    Posts:
    12,364
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2002
    Location:
    SE Valley
    Just so there is no confusion, the following example was not funded by government grant. Example: Primary objective - share the Gospel of Jesus Christ; secondary objective - feed the hungry.
    I have been a member of a local church whose members would purchase and collect food staples. These grocery bags of food would then be taken to the local public school district to be distributed by the school, to needy families. The school determined the need. The only connection between the end recipient of the food and the church was that each bag was labeled as having come from the church organization. Their was no ancillary benefit to the church.

    By the way a person is only able to share their faith, no one can cause another person to convert, it is an internal process.

    Is this an assumption or do you have factual information? If you have factual information about one or two incidences (I agree it's wrong and unethical.), does that imply that all faith based charities function in this fashion?
    You may be talking about a few specific instances, but you are painting with a broad brush. Unfortunately, when one organization acts in the fashion you have depicted it does reflect upon other similar non-offending organizations.
    I agree completely, to do otherwise is unethical!
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2005
  14. nidan

    nidan Oscar Contributor

    Posts:
    21,912
    Likes Received:
    10
    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Relax, I agree with you, I wasn't trying to imply this is common. It is far less likley with normal churches [I suspect] who primary purpose is their own religious avctivities and then do charitable work as well.

    I am far more suspicious of these groups [like the one reported] who objectives is trying to get others into church rather than their own faith. Some seem to feel it is their business to protheltisis [yeah, like I can spell that] and some are very active even agressive at it. Seems counter productive to me, but what do I know.
     

Share This Page