[Changleen]

Bush seeks to turn the developing world into religious idiots just like him.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/08/bush_brings_faith_to_foreign_aid/?page=1

Bush brings faith to foreign aid

As funding rises, Christian groups deliver help -- with a message

LAKARTINYA, Kenya -- The herders of this remote mountain village know little about America, but have learned from those who run a US-funded aid program about the American God.

A Christian God.

The US government has given $10.9 million to Food for the Hungry, a faith-based development organization, to reach deep into the arid mountains of northern Kenya to provide training in hygiene, childhood illnesses, and clean water. The group has brought all that, and something else that increasingly accompanies US-funded aid programs: regular church service and prayer.

President Bush has almost doubled the percentage of US foreign-aid dollars going to faith-based groups such as Food for the Hungry, according to a Globe survey of government data. And in seeking to help such groups obtain more contracts, Bush has systematically eliminated or weakened rules designed to enforce the separation of church and state.

In Lakartinya, a simple hut built with funds from the US government is the first in the area to have a tin roof. It serves as a station for weighing babies, distributing food, teaching health classes -- and, until recently, initiating local people into the rites of Christianity, according to Food for the Hungry staff. Classes begin and end with prayers, and in some cases are followed by Christian services.

For decades, US policy has sought to avoid intermingling government programs and religious proselytizing. The aim is both to abide by the Constitution's prohibition against a state religion and to ensure that aid recipients don't forgo assistance because they don't share the religion of the provider.

Since medical programs are aimed at the most serious illnesses -- AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis -- the decision whether to seek treatment can determine life or death.

Bush's orders also reversed longstanding rules forbidding the use of government funds to pay for employees who are required to take an oath to one religion. In addition, the president's orders allowed faith-based groups to keep religious symbols in places where they distribute taxpayer-funded aid.

And in implementing the president's orders, the administration rejected efforts to require groups to inform beneficiaries that they don't have to attend religious services to get the help they need. Instead of a requirement, groups are merely encouraged to make clear to recipients that they don't have to participate in religious activities.

Bush made some of the changes by executive order only after failing to get Congress to approve them; the bill faltered in the Senate, where moderate Republicans joined Democrats in raising concerns about breaking down the barrier between government and religion.

``I got a little frustrated in Washington because I couldn't get the bill passed," Bush told a meeting of faith-based groups in March 2004. ``Congress wouldn't act, so I signed an executive order -- that means I did it on my own."

The legality of Bush's moves is being challenged by a group advocating separation of church and state. The lawsuit, claiming both that Bush overstepped his powers and that the orders violate the Constitution, is inching its way through the federal courts.

Faith-based groups have long delivered humanitarian assistance in distant and dangerous places, marshaling an impressive array of volunteers. But Bush's initiative has put government dollars into faith-based providers in unprecedented fashion. A Globe survey of more than 52,000 awards of contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements from the US Agency for International Development -- which distributes taxpayer-funded assistance overseas -- provides the first comprehensive assessment of the impact of Bush's policies on foreign aid.

The survey of prime contractors and grantees, based on records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, shows a sharp increase in money going to faith-based groups between fiscal 2001, the last budget of the Clinton administration, and fiscal 2005, the last year for which complete figures were available. Faith-based groups accounted for 10.5 percent of USAID dollars to nongovernmental aid organizations in fiscal 2001, and 19.9 percent in 2005.

Boost for Christians
The numbers also show that the faith-based initiative overseas is almost exclusively a Christian initiative: Only two Jewish development groups and two Muslim groups of any type got any grants or contracts between fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2005, and Christians received 98.3 percent of all such funds to religious groups from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2005.

The prime beneficiaries have been large groups including Catholic Relief Services and evangelical organizations such as World Vision -- the former employer of Bush's longtime USAID director Andrew Natsios -- and Samaritan's Purse, which is led by evangelist Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, who guided Bush to his own religious rebirth.

But many of those restrictions were removed by Bush in a little-noticed series of executive orders -- a policy change that cleared the way for religious groups to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in additional government funding. It also helped change the message American aid workers bring to many corners of the world, from emphasizing religious neutrality to touting the healing powers of the Christian God.

Bush's orders altered the longstanding practice that groups preach religion in one space and run government programs in another. The administration said religious organizations can conduct services in the same space as they hand out government aid, so long as the services don't take place while the aid is being delivered. But the rule allows groups to schedule prayers immediately before or after dispensing taxpayer-funded aid.

Food for the Hungry, which is also evangelical, received its contract to run USAID programs in Lakartinya in fiscal 1999, during the Clinton administration, and it was renewed under Bush. The group's funding jumped from $7 million in fiscal 2001 to $20 million in fiscal 2005. Bush also appointed the group's president, Benjamin Homan, to chair USAID's advisory board.

More if you click on the link.

Is there any aspect of what makes America good and cool that Bush isn't kicking in the nuts?

 

[Silver]

A little Jesus added to the misery never hurts. God created them and placed them in horribly difficult circumstances, so I guess it's only fair that he's involved with getting them out.

Pity Jesus needs tax money for that though. I would have thought omnipotence would mean that cashflow wasn't a problem...

 

[skinny mike]

the missionaries should let starvin' marvin eat his bible.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

This makes me laugh....

``I got a little frustrated in Washington because I couldn't get the bill passed," Bush told a meeting of faith-based groups in March 2004. ``Congress wouldn't act, so I signed an executive order -- that means I did it on my own."

And I mean laugh in that nervous, "I know something is horribly, horribly wrong", Texas Chainsaw Massacre killing....kind of way.....

 

[kinghami3]

Hey, if it worked for the Romans it can work for... wait a second...

 

[$tinkle]

taking chang's cue: since it would be better to withhold this package (& perhaps spend it on our own similar problems w/ poverty & education?), why should any country - let alone arguably the most resourceful country in history - offer any of its money to any country in need?

would it be out of self-preservation, or is there another basis-in-morality the u.s. should follow?

 

[Changleen]

taking chang's cue: since it would be better to withhold this package (& perhaps spend it on our own similar problems w/ poverty & education?), why should any country - let alone arguably the most resourceful country in history - offer any of its money to any country in need?

would it be out of self-preservation, or is there another basis-in-morality the u.s. should follow?

Uhhh, you missed the point...

But yes, it is in your own (and the world as a whole's) interest to lift the extremely poor out of that hole.

Secondly if we don't want to spend the next millenium fighting religious extremists and the consequences of their actions, paying one's own extremists to teach them the ways of a vengeful gawd probably isn't such a great idea either, let alone the implicatons for the US's (previous) very sensible 'church and state' ideals.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

taking chang's cue: since it would be better to withhold this package (& perhaps spend it on our own similar problems w/ poverty & education?), why should any country - let alone arguably the most resourceful country in history - offer any of its money to any country in need?

would it be out of self-preservation, or is there another basis-in-morality the u.s. should follow?

Sorry man, but the ends don't justify the means, especially when the means are the trampling of the Constitution.

 

[$tinkle]

But yes, it is in your own (and the world as a whole's) interest to lift the extremely poor out of that hole.

but how do you do that w/o the necessary oversight? recall, these are sovereign nations, so we attach strings. in this instance, one of the conditions is faith-based, as (i assume) this group successfully lobbied to gain entry to do what they feel convicted of doing: helping by various means, including evangelizing.

play king george for a day: how would you distribute the u.s.'s resources to aid in the beginning of empowering other nations to lift up their poor?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

but how do you do that w/o the necessary oversight? recall, these are sovereign nations, so we attach strings. in this instance, one of the conditions is faith-based, as (i assume) this group successfully lobbied to gain entry to do what they feel convicted of doing: helping by various means, including evangelizing.

play king george for a day: how would you distribute the u.s.'s resources to aid in the beginning of empowering other nations to lift up their poor?

Um, it was already happening before we decided that we had to earmark taxpayer funds for Xtian groups to evangelize to the heathens.

 

[$tinkle]

Um, it was already happening before we decided that we had to earmark taxpayer funds for Xtian groups to evangelize to the heathens.

oh, good.
point me to this model country where poverty has been eradicated, please.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

oh, good.
point me to this model country where poverty has been eradicated, please.

Nice red herring.

You were talking about distribution of US aid. Now, I have to show a country with no poverty for some reason? Huh?

 

[$tinkle]

omgf: in post #9 the word "that" is ascribed to "lifting the extremely poor out of the hole [of poverty]", as found in the quote. next, the question is posed as to how the u.s. should distribute aid in the beginning of empowering other nations to lift up their poor?

if you're unable to offer something productive to the thread, at least take a swing at being humorous, like a picture of you fellating your red herring.

or vice versa.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

omgf: in post #9 the word "that" is ascribed to "lifting the extremely poor out of the hole [of poverty]", as found in the quote. next, the question is posed as to how the u.s. should distribute aid in the beginning of empowering other nations to lift up their poor?

No, you asked how one would distribute aid.

play king george for a day: how would you distribute the u.s.'s resources to aid in the beginning of empowering other nations to lift up their poor?

No one has been able to eradicate poverty, and the Xtian groups will not be able to accomplish it either.

Either way, distributing aid and asking for a country that has eradicated poverty are two completely separate issues and hence it is indeed a red herring. Look it up if you don't understand the words I'm using. Oh, and you'll also note that Chang pointed out that you were the one that missed the point. We were giving aid to other countries without attaching the requirement to listen to Xtian propaganda before Bush decided that Xtian organizations should get tax-payer funds to spread their religion.

 

[Changleen]

The truth is that most aid is actually a way to keep these poor people in a dependant and hopefully subserviant relationship with us (until we decide we need them as the new cheap labour force) whilst simultaneously letting the ignorant western masses feel warm and fluffy about driving gas gussling SUVs and throwing away 9/10ths of their food every time they up at Fridays. "We're helping!"

Xtian aid vs. secular aid is a similar proposition, it seems to always end up with the need for more aid, it's just one way you spend a 'useful' bunch of clean water money on churches and the promotion of ignorance.

If we truly had the political will to end poverty, we'd simply start to trade with these countries on reasonable terms rather than the assrape we currently practice.

The issue here is how has Bush gotten away with yet another fairly significant undermining of what America is supposed to stand for? The answer seems to me to revolve around issues like media control and the increasingly enforced ignorance of the US population, which frankly to me is more scary than many other things.

 

[$tinkle]

The truth is that most aid is actually a way to keep these poor people in a dependant and hopefully subserviant relationship with us (until we decide we need them as the new cheap labour force)

we westerners call this "getting a promotion"; talking about biting the hand - sheesh!

whilst simultaneously letting the ignorant western masses feel warm and fluffy about ... throwing away 9/10ths of their food every time they up at Fridays.

i never quite understood our evolution into 4,000 calorie meals

Xtian aid vs. secular aid is a similar proposition, it seems to always end up with the need for more aid, it's just one way you spend a 'useful' bunch of clean water money on churches and the promotion of ignorance.

do you not think to some degree faith-based groups are also being exploited? we (or the prez) can grab quite a bit of glory under the auspices of altruism. i think you alluded to this in the rest of your post.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

do you not think to some degree faith-based groups are also being exploited? we (or the prez) can grab quite a bit of glory under the auspices of altruism. i think you alluded to this in the rest of your post.

That depends on your definition of exploitation.

The Republicans give more money to churches and in return get votes from the members of those churches. Are they being exploited for their votes, or is it a quid pro quo exchange?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The issue here is how has Bush gotten away with yet another fairly significant undermining of what America is supposed to stand for? The answer seems to me to revolve around issues like media control and the increasingly enforced ignorance of the US population, which frankly to me is more scary than many other things.

Don't forget apathy. There's some of that involved too.

In reality though, most people (that aren't ignorant of the situation) either don't care that we are using their money to spread Xtianity (since most people are Xtians in this country anyway) or they think it's a good idea (which I know isn't apathy, but outright support.)

 

[$tinkle]

That depends on your definition of exploitation.

hand washing

The Republicans give more money to churches and in return get votes from the members of those churches.

how exactly do churches get money funnelled to them?

 

[Changleen]

do you not think to some degree faith-based groups are also being exploited? we (or the prez) can grab quite a bit of glory under the auspices of altruism. i think you alluded to this in the rest of your post.

Not really, it seems to me the Church is getting the best of the deal, it now gets free funding to further an agenda it was already doing it's best to further anyway - the 'xtianisation of the savage lands' as it were. Guaranteed future growth.

Bush gets votes from the wrong sort of people, the ideal of America takes another swift one to the crotch, and the world gets a new generation of religious intollerance, and bearing in mind the history of the places we're talking about, probably a few more genocidal conflicts.

From where I'm standing it appears to be nothing more than a multiplying factor of all the things that are already wrong with the western concept of 'giving aid'. Not only do we get all the subserviance etc as I said, but with this method we also get a bit of inbuilt population control so our total aid spending doesn't need to increase too much.

Cynical I know but it would seem to make sense, especially if we were also considering that we don't want / need to exploit Africa just yet, but also want to keep them 'on our side' because China is getting up in there right now, and we simply can't allow them to have anything we might want at some point in the future eh? We'd be better off to destroy it.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

The truth is that most aid is actually a way to keep these poor people in a dependant and hopefully subserviant relationship with us (until we decide we need them as the new cheap labour force) whilst simultaneously letting the ignorant western masses feel warm and fluffy about driving gas gussling SUVs and throwing away 9/10ths of their food every time they up at Fridays. "We're helping!"

Xtian aid vs. secular aid is a similar proposition, it seems to always end up with the need for more aid, it's just one way you spend a 'useful' bunch of clean water money on churches and the promotion of ignorance.

If we truly had the political will to end poverty, we'd simply start to trade with these countries on reasonable terms rather than the assrape we currently practice.

The issue here is how has Bush gotten away with yet another fairly significant undermining of what America is supposed to stand for? The answer seems to me to revolve around issues like media control and the increasingly enforced ignorance of the US population, which frankly to me is more scary than many other things.

aid in the form of contraceptives and sex ed would help a whole lot more IMHO in the south american case.
unfortunately, the catholic bishops and priests, who pretty much are the highest authorities in smaller villages where most of the poor reside, frown upon the use of any contraceptive.. since it "incites the youth into a live of perversion and sin".

the poorest regions here have a 6-7 child per woman fertility ratio. there is just no way to come up with a sustainable plan to improve life standards starting with that.

 

[Silver]

In somewhat related news, I read "The Missionary Position" over the course of a couple of hours last week. Hitchens is elegant and brutal with the literary scalpel at the same time. Very enjoyable read...

http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Theory-Practice/dp/185984054X/sr=8-1/qid=1160434143/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4144948-3452737?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[Old Man G Funk]

aid in the form of contraceptives and sex ed would help a whole lot more IMHO in the south american case.
unfortunately, the catholic bishops and priests, who pretty much are the highest authorities in smaller villages where most of the poor reside, frown upon the use of any contraceptive.. since it "incites the youth into a live of perversion and sin".

the poorest regions here have a 6-7 child per woman fertility ratio. there is just no way to come up with a sustainable plan to improve life standards starting with that.

It's not just in SA, but also in Africa. In Africa, there's also the rampant spread of AIDS that we care nothing about unless they teach abstinence until marriage only.

IIRC, Bush's first act in office was to revoke funding to the programs in poor countries if they didn't promote abstinence only.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

how exactly do churches get money funnelled to them?

Um, through the office of faith based initiatives? There's a pretty good article in the first post on this thread that spells it out pretty well.

 

[DaveW]

hand washing
how exactly do churches get money funnelled to them?

Like this.......New York Times story about the astonishing (and growing) extent to which faith-based businesses are granted exemptions at all levels by government in the US. Don't want to pay any taxes or bother with health and safety or environmental regulations on your bowling alley or daycare business? Just hang up a cross on the front door. All the other suckers will carry the can.

 

[$tinkle]

Like this.......New York Times story about the astonishing (and growing) extent to which faith-based businesses are granted exemptions at all levels by government in the US. Don't want to pay any taxes or bother with health and safety or environmental regulations on your bowling alley or daycare business? Just hang up a cross on the front door. All the other suckers will carry the can.

not quite. this is a lessening of tax liability, much like how i can lessen my tax liability through deductions & credits. this has clearly been widely abused in a particular town (in texas, i think) that claims home to hundreds of churches of varying faiths/denominations.

this is a clear distinction from having (your) tax dollars go to the gov't just to then go to religious coffers. to refuse to accept this distinction would then follow that you fund terrorism each time you refuel your car

 

[Old Man G Funk]

not quite. this is a lessening of tax liability, much like how i can lessen my tax liability through deductions & credits. this has clearly been widely abused in a particular town (in texas, i think) that claims home to hundreds of churches of varying faiths/denominations.

this is a clear distinction from having (your) tax dollars go to the gov't just to then go to religious coffers. to refuse to accept this distinction would then follow that you fund terrorism each time you refuel your car

Actually, it acts as a double whammy. Churches get lower tax liability coupled with money from the office of faith based initiatives. They pay less and receive more from the gov. to do the same services they were doing before. The overflow ends up in the church coffers.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Talk about a problem that will NEVER be solved. Wow. You think someone could ever cut funding to christian orgs. and not be hated by the US public? With the heavy influence of xtianity in the US, Im afraid you guys will just have to accept deals like this.

 

[$tinkle]

Actually, it acts as a double whammy. Churches get lower tax liability coupled with money from the office of faith based initiatives. They pay less and receive more from the gov. to do the same services they were doing before. The overflow ends up in the church coffers.

to demonstrate you are not confusing "churches" (new life church, 5th baptist of harlem, et. al.) with "faith-based groups" (focus on the family, navigators, compassion int'l), show me where a church receives funds?

should be easy, as one of the conditions of a 501(c)(3) is open books.

 

[Silver]

not quite. this is a lessening of tax liability, much like how i can lessen my tax liability through deductions & credits. this has clearly been widely abused in a particular town (in texas, i think) that claims home to hundreds of churches of varying faiths/denominations.

Also known as subsidy...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

to demonstrate you are not confusing "churches" (new life church, 5th baptist of harlem, et. al.) with "faith-based groups" (focus on the family, navigators, compassion int'l), show me where a church receives funds?

should be easy, as one of the conditions of a 501(c)(3) is open books.

Ugh.

You do realize that those "faith-based groups" do the work of churches, right? Does it matter if it is a specific church that goes out and proselytizes with our tax money or a "faith-based group" that goes out and proselytizes with our money (edit) at the behest of that church? The end result is the same and both are equally against the Constitutional separation of church and state. So what, the churches fund "groups" that do their work. It's like laundering money.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Talk about a problem that will NEVER be solved. Wow. You think someone could ever cut funding to christian orgs. and not be hated by the US public? With the heavy influence of xtianity in the US, Im afraid you guys will just have to accept deals like this.

Which is a sad state to be in, especially for a country that looks down its nose at such "backward" countries as Iran for having theocratic government policies.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Which is a sad state to be in, especially for a country that looks down its nose at such "backward" countries as Iran for having theocratic government policies.

I guess. But taking into consideration that the US public wants the orgs to do good, and are behind them in to do so, its not all bad news. I mean, we could have no aid at all going out. Id rather have a bowl of rice with a cross on it than no bowl at all.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I guess. But taking into consideration that the US public wants the orgs to do good, and are behind them in to do so, its not all bad news. I mean, we could have no aid at all going out. Id rather have a bowl of rice with a cross on it than no bowl at all.

We've talked about this before and it's been pointed out that the aid money going to church groups would still be used for the same purpose without the proselytizing involved.

Yes, the public does want good to come of this, but I don't think that's any different from what another country's citizens might want (although their definition of "good" may vary.) So, no, it's not all bad news. And, certainly, feeding the poor with a cross is still feeding the poor. But, it can be done (legally) without the cross as well.

 

[$tinkle]

Also known as subsidy...

a subsidy is a grant

in school, i applied for & received various grants, all of which were deemed to be taxable. do some faith-based groups receive fed'l & state level subsidies/grants? i expect they do, which is curious: are they then exempt from taxes from the same?

You do realize that those "faith-based groups" do the work of churches, right?

to include providing food, clothing, & shelter, all with no obligation to first profess Christ as their saviour. is this what worries you so? that people are fed & clothed, yet might have to listen to a gospel message funded in part by you?

The end result is the same and both are equally against the Constitutional separation of church and state.

was i asleep when the constitution was amended so?

It's like laundering money.

how many times have you seen office space?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

to include providing food, clothing, & shelter, all with no obligation to first profess Christ as their saviour. is this what worries you so? that people are fed & clothed, yet might have to listen to a gospel message funded in part by you?

That as a condition of getting aid they will have to listen to proselytizing? Yes. It violates our rights to have our tax money funding the proselytizing of these churches.

was i asleep when the constitution was amended so?

You weren't born yet.

how many times have you seen office space?

Many, many times. But, the point remains. Simply because they call themselves a church for one purpose and a "faith based group" for another purpose doesn't excuse what is happening.

 

[$tinkle]

You weren't born yet.

let's get right to it, shall we?

point out the unambiguous part(s) of the constitution that preclude any church/state mixing.

good luck.

 

[Silver]

a subsidy is a grant

Not necessarily. If the EU cut all taxes on Airbus to a 0% rate, do you think Boeing would be justified in complaining about that being a subsidy?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

let's get right to it, shall we?

point out the unambiguous part(s) of the constitution that preclude any church/state mixing.

good luck.

Try the first amendment and the fourteenth. Jefferson himself said that the first amendment was meant to build a wall of separation between church and state. IMO the government funding groups that use that money to proselytize steps over the line. Bush and Co. don't agree obviously, and the courts generally stand somewhere in the middle. I know my opinion is the minority, but that doesn't give the majority the right to trample my rights.

 

[$tinkle]

Try the first amendment and the fourteenth. Jefferson himself said that the first amendment was meant to build a wall of separation between church and state. IMO the government funding groups that use that money to proselytize steps over the line. Bush and Co. don't agree obviously, and the courts generally stand somewhere in the middle. I know my opinion is the minority, but that doesn't give the majority the right to trample my rights.

i think you're mixing up endorsement with establishment.

i agree that your opinion on this topic shouldn't be trumped just because it's a minority opinion. however i don't believe this translates to your (perceived) rights being "trampled".

i'll try & gain your perspective by plugging in "scientology" whereever there appears to be endorsement of any religion.