Kerry, a.k.a. Bush, supports faith-based initiatives

CarneVaca · #1 08-12-2004, 12:28 PM

As if we needed more proof that Kerry is Bush, here's what he told the African Methodist Episcopalian convention in July:

"I know there are some who say that the First Amendment means faith-based organizations can't help government," he said. "I think they are wrong. I want to offer support for your efforts, including financial support, in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws and values the role of faith in inspiring countless acts of justice and mercy across our land."

In a fact sheet distributed after the speech, he called for a 'Presidential Advisory Group on Expanding Faith-Based Initiatives.'

Wow. How did the mainstream media, which jumped all over Bush when he launched the initiative, miss this?

In case you were wondering, yes, the AME supports "faith-based initiatives" as well as a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

dissention · #2 08-12-2004, 12:32 PM

Can't say I'm surprised, especially with his recent comments about Iraq. How sad.

strandinthewind · #3 08-12-2004, 12:36 PM

Interesting. But, what he said is not exactly W's position. W wants all faith based cahrities to get money. Kerry's language "in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws" suggests that financial aid would go only to organizations that did not try to covert. Such organizations exist. In any event, that is the way the US is headed. On the one hand, I think Fed. money is best spent elsewhere. But, on the other, the provate faith based groups on the whole do a great job administering to the poor, caring for the sick, etc. So, it is a condundrum for me.

This is a little bit like you saying that because Kerry thinks life begins at conception, he is like Bush and anti-abortion. Abortion is about pro-choice, not when life begins

SO, to say W and Kerry are the same on that issue is incorrect.

CarneVaca · #4 08-12-2004, 12:36 PM

I just don't get why liberals would vote for this guy. He's worse than Gore.

Meanwhile, Nader's numbers are growing, even though he may not be on the ballot in a lot of states. If he is, he might get more votes than even I would have expected a few months ago.

CarneVaca · #5 08-12-2004, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

On the one hand, I think Fed. money is best spent elsewhere. But, on the other, the provate faith based groups on the whole do a great job administering to the poor, caring for the sick, etc. So, it is a condundrum for me.

Extremely dangerous. Setting aside the issue of stave v. religion, the idea that that these organizations will start taking on the roles that belong in government agencies can only mean that poor people who need help the most will get screwed in the end. We are moving backwards by doing this.

James Madison warned about this kind of thing:

Madison founded Kerry's party and authored the Bill of Rights. In 1811, as President, he vetoed "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia." He gave several reasons for the veto, and closed with this still-applicable conclusion:

"Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."

strandinthewind · #6 08-12-2004, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Extremely dangerous. Setting aside the issue of stave v. religion, the idea that that these organizations will start taking on the roles that belong in government agencies can only mean that poor people who need help the most will get screwed in the end. We are moving backwards by doing this.

James Madison warned about this kind of thing:

Madison founded Kerry's party and authored the Bill of Rights. In 1811, as President, he vetoed "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia." He gave several reasons for the veto, and closed with this still-applicable conclusion:

"Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."

I agree the govt. should provide assistance. It is just that the govt. essentially screws up everything it touches. So, if the govt. can give some of this resp. to a private charity that does it ten times more efficiently than the govt. (which would not be hard to do

) and the govt. does not discrimminate between the religions when it provides financial aid. Interestingly, we then get into the Establishment Clause and why it was put in there, which was not to make the US establish an official religion a la The Church of England and all of the fighting and bloodshed associated with it. I mean if the govt. provides financial support to all religious charities (Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Wiccan, etc.) then how is that establishing one religion for the land

Thus, it probably is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.

I do, however, think it is a slippery slope and it scares me to think people like Pat Robertson will get tax dollars, even though they alreasy do because most Churches are taxed differently, etc., and I am SURE they claim all of those cash collections

CarneVaca · #7 08-12-2004, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree the govt. should provide assistance. It is just that the govt. essentially screws up everything it touches. So, if the govt. can give some of this resp. to a private charity that does it ten times more efficiently than the govt. ...

The government also consistently screws up how it uses my tax money. Mind you, I'm not anti-tax. But, man, if we were to use this reasoning, we would end up even transferring defense to private hands, nyet? Come to think of it, on that last one... it sort of already did.

strandinthewind · #8 08-12-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

The government also consistently screws up how it uses my tax money. Mind you, I'm not anti-tax. But, man, if we were to use this reasoning, we would end up even transferring defense to private hands, nyet? Come to think of it, on that last one... it sort of already did.

YOu are preaching to the choir!!!!!