“Faith Based” charities get ready for chance at $3.7 BILLION in Federal grant money.

Looks like The ShrubTM is asking the Justice Department to get off it’s ass and move forward with his decree from a year ago to make religious charities eligible for Federal grants.

Yahoo! News – Bush seeks billions for religious groups

“At the President’s direction, the Department of Justice (news – web sites) took action to finalize regulations that implement President Bush’s policy of ending discrimination against faith-based charities in the Federal grants process,” it said in a statement.

The move applies to 3.7 billion dollars, including programs to support victims of crime, the prevention of child victimization, and safe schools, the White House said.

Bush decided one year ago to implement by decree some elements of his controversial “faith-based initiative,” which aims to steer funds to religious charities, eroding the traditional separation between church and state.

“This country must not fear the influence of faith in the future of this country. We must welcome faith in order to make America a better place,” said the president, who is a regular church-goer.

I don’t fear the influence of faith in the future of this country, what I fear is a President who decides to implement programs which violate the establishment clause by Presidential decree when he can’t get what he wants from Congress. I also fear a Justice Department that appears willing to be complicit in the dismantling of the Bill of Rights.

11 thoughts on ““Faith Based” charities get ready for chance at $3.7 BILLION in Federal grant money.

  1. Start fitting your wife for a Burka now

    (rofl) that’s hella funny!

    (rolling on the floor weeping)  Wait a minute, that’s not as funny as I thought at first.

  2. Oh, but I do fear the influence of religion in this country, because I am a member of a minority religion, one which has a rich 5000 year tradition of being the religion chosen for extinction. Just because “they” haven’t succeeded in annihilating us yet, doesn’t mean “they” won’t. And maybe even in my lifetime, if that isn’t an oxymoron.

  3. I wasn’t impressed much by that article. I like a little more balanced, thought out and imagine this, researched approach if I am going to listen to an opinion from a writer. Of course I didn’t expect that when I saw that the title of the article was, “God hates unmarried losers. It’s BushCo’s 1.5 billion plan to let the homophobic Christina right dictate love. Whee!” No bias there. They certainly wouldn’t try to guilt me into an opinion and are going to convince me of the “obviousness” of their point with hard evidence. I want an article that attacks the issue rather than talks about ulterior motives and elements that are not in the initiative but pretend that they are there.  Also one that doesn’t throw out extreme examples to prove its point.  I believe the NY times link in the article gave me a much better understanding of the initiative. Here is another article.

    I think it reaches about the same conclusion but without so much misdirection, hate, and other extremist tactics. It’s more thought out and focused. Better yet, Its actual in the field journalism on the subject.

    I am not for Bush’s faith based programs and I am not so sure his marriage initiative will work either but that doesn’t mean I should judge the initiative without thinking and allow any prior bias to affect that thinking. Skepticism is fine but not when it completely clouds my judgment. For example, SF bemoans the “Christian marriage” by stating that the divorce rate is 50% but does not compare it to the fact as Frontline does, that “In some impoverished urban communities, (the demographic this initiative is going after) as few as one out of 10 children are born to married parents,” So I believe raising it to 50% would be an improvement. Of course that may hurt SF Gates opinion so they wouldn’t want to research that fact. Though it is true that married couples are more successful the problem that really needs to be addressed, that Frontline discovers, and is quite obvious, is that within poor inner city communities you can’t get men to commit to marriage and woman to marry them until they can get a job. The SF gate doesn’t actually explore the real issue, too lazy I guess, they instead spout all the same “anyone who doesn’t think like me is part of an absolute evil agenda and the world’s problems can be solved in my head without any proof at all that it would actually work in the real world’ bullshit that drove me nuts while living in that city. I lived there for many years and arguing with a Berkeley student is the worst. They argue like Pat Buchnan. They think different beliefs but come up with those conclusion the same way. They are closed minded, will not even listen to your argument and will use completely ridicules “facts” to prove their point. They are like Many religious fanatics on this site. The worst part is when you actually agree with them but cannot in any way agree with HOW they came up with their conclusions.

  4. While I have serious concerns about Bush’s faith-based policy, I note that the headline “Bush seeks billions for religious groups” is inflammatory and bogus; Bush seeks to allow religious groups to compete for “billions” alongside non-religious groups. 

    I actually have a fair amount of sympathy for wanting groups that have effective programs for helping people to be allowed to compete for public funds regardless of whether they are faith-based or not. 

    That said, I am equally uncomfortable with public monies going to programs that act out their faith-based restrictions on employment, and am equally uncomfortable with organizations being forced to give up their faith-based restrictions in order to bid for money.

    That said, Start fitting your wife for a Burka now to avoid the rush once that get decreed. is about as worthwhile and valid a rhetoric as the Bush=Hitler (or Dean=Hitler) bullshit.  It doesn’t address the issues involved here, which are by no means trivial on either side.

  5. I wouldn’t worry about Bush faith based and marriage initiatives going too far, at least at the federal level.  I work in the human services field, so you could say I have an insider’s view, and while the Bush admin talks a good game on both of these, I have yet to see results.  There have been tangible programs in some states, and these would likely be the ones to pull down the new federal funds.  In other words, if your state is lukewarm on making policy changes to accomodate faith based contractors or pushing marriage programs, you won’t see much beyond a few token programs.

    A quick comment on the merits of the marriage promotion issue:  I am too lazy to dig up the citations, but I went to a conference at the Nat’l Academy of Sciences 2 years ago on TANF Reauthorization and child outcomes, and there were several solid research projects that measured the positive effect of marriage on low income families (when I say solid, that excludes anything from the Heritage Foundation).  One was titled “Jacob’s Ladder,” and may or may not have been part of the “Fragile Families” study.  While the studies put marriage in a favorable light, there was no clear consensus on operationalizing the findings.

  6. A BURKA??

    Silly Frac!  Burkas won’t be required, for the Nation of Islam is not to be funded by Bush’s faith-based initiative due to the “violence” the group encourages.

    I’d love to see what else they want to exclude for being overly “violent”.  Meanwhile, save up your money for one of those big, ostentatious crosses that they sell in jewelry stores.  Remember, God loves you - but only if you flaunt his presence!

  7. though i see your angst against the fake religious society, and most of the man-run rules, dont include your views of your creator with those of religion.  the heart of chrisianity-Christ, is our only hope.

  8. The figures are out.  All told, religious-oriented groups were awarded $1.17 billion in 2003. That is about 8 percent of the $14.5 billion spent on social programs that qualify for faith-based grants in five federal departments. And there was no burka decree.  Maybe next year.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.