Post #205,730
5/3/05 2:50:47 PM
|
How do you know?
The cry was so loud and fast that nothing, in the end, really got off the ground.
And the major organized religions are obviously going to be the ones doing the most work. So forgive the Christian religions for being the majority of these. The churches are already established as non-profits. So under your rules they would have to set themselves up as that >again< in order to help. Silly. Though in a governmental sense, the irony in that is not lost on me ;-) (waste not, want not and all that)
Yes, the devil is in the details. But the opposition wants to make sure that if the starving man is fed that the one doing the feeding simply not be allowed to discuss their beliefs while doing so. You know, the beliefs that probably convinced that person to volunteer and help the poor fella to begin with.
Again, Robertson and the vocal minority are a bunch of idiots...even most "religious" people think so. Unfortunately, those opposed leave no wiggle room...forcing those borderline folks back over to the Coalition.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #205,733
5/3/05 3:00:58 PM
|
I have no problem with faith based charity
that is open and provides services with no strings attached.
I'm not a big fan of the Hare Krishnas but the HK temple in Detroit (with some help from Henry Ford Jr) feeds an awful lot of people without telling them that their souls are in mortal danger all the time.
Its the ones that set up the big buffet and require you to be baptised before being given a plate that I object to. Hard vs Soft sell I suppose. But if you're going to put those kinds of conditions on things, then don't expect to work with the government.
Evangelicals are their own worst enemy here. They could change their approach and end the objections. But they're apparently too filled with "holy spirit" or something to develop actual compassion and respect for alternative beliefs.
If your thing is so good, do good works and people will seek to be like you. Stay a preachy fear mongering asshole and you will be shunned and impeded.
What a fucking surprise.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #205,776
5/3/05 6:48:26 PM
|
I do....
not with faith-based charities...
but I do have a problem with Tax Dollars going to faith-based charities.
Look the government can cut a check - or not. I don't see any reason for Tax Dollars going to faith-based charities. If the government wants to help out some bloke, fine, run a program and help some bloke. Do NOT take my Tax Dollars and give it to someone who claims they are going to help some bloke.
(I'm not biased in this, btw. I don't believe in the US Government giving Tax Dollars to the American Red Cross or the United Way either.)
|
Post #205,803
5/3/05 8:51:59 PM
|
so you are against privitization of government?
salvation army gets a lot more bang for the buck than the state welfare office.
thanx,
bill
All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett
[link|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/]
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #205,861
5/4/05 7:17:30 AM
|
Maybe so..
but the Sally Anne is not accountable to the public. The government is (well... it's supposed to be.) If they are using tax dollars, there should be some accountability.
|
Post #205,864
5/4/05 8:11:17 AM
|
thats what audits are for.
All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett
[link|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/]
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #205,868
5/4/05 8:25:06 AM
|
I thought they were to get rid of thetans.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #206,013
5/4/05 11:45:15 PM
|
So does the United Way and Red Cross....
yet I still don't see any reason for my TAX DOLLARS to go to them.
Besides, you and I both know that charities and privization are two different things. (The key elements being those Audits and Measurements that you just mentioned below.)
|
Post #205,747
5/3/05 3:32:59 PM
|
Not most, all
The cry was so loud and fast that nothing, in the end, really got off the ground. It doesn't have nearly the scale or money that Bush wanted. But there is an office of faith based programs that does distribute money. So forgive the Christian religions for being the majority of these. I fully expect that most of the money for Bush's faith based program will go to Christian groups. But in fact, all of it has. Not a single dollar has gone to a non-Christian group yet. Yes, the devil is in the details. But the opposition wants to make sure that if the starving man is fed that the one doing the feeding simply not be allowed to discuss their beliefs while doing so. You know, the beliefs that probably convinced that person to volunteer and help the poor fella to begin with. No, what we want to avoid is situations like the faith based prison programs being trialed in Florida. In this program a Christian group is providing job training and other programs to prisoners, but only to Christians. Jay
|
Post #205,755
5/3/05 4:10:17 PM
|
Same for tsunami relief.
There were Christian "charity" groups down there making conversion to Christianity the condition for aid, no matter how badly you needed help. Hopefully they've all been thrown out of the region by now, but I doubt it, there's a lot of money behind this crap.
If other Christians object to being tarred with the same brush I use on the extremists, then they'd better start making a clear and evident effort to reign in the extremists istead of condoning them because "they're fellow Christians". Otherwise I consider them fellow tavelers.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #205,759
5/3/05 4:57:40 PM
5/3/05 4:58:48 PM
|
Oooh. Threats.
"There were Christian "charity" groups down there making conversion to Christianity the condition for aid, no matter how badly you needed help" What percentage of Christian groups did this? Or are you arguing from 1 to many? Oh, that's right - you threatened to 'tar them all with the same brush as fellow travellers'. From that statement, I guess I am 'justified' if I tar YOU with the same brush as the Neocons - after all, you exhibit the same level of logic, and the same regard for justice that they have. And, BTW, what percentage of Christians ( even eliminating the subset you object to) went over (from the US) to help after the tsunami? Donated $ and/or time for aid? Do you know? Do you know enough to compare that to all the non-Christian aid proffered (from the US)? Also, I'd like to hear you cite hard evidence of all the non-extremists that condone them because "they're fellow Christians". I'm a Christian, buddy, and I have NEVER condoned that kind of bullshit. My ex-grilf, a fundamentalist, born-again Christian, opposes these bastards vociferously as well. Indeed, I have NO Christian friends that aren't bitter about the hijacking of the term "Christian" by the right. To hear you talk, most Christians go along with this crap, though. Show your cards, Andrew. I'm calling your bluff. [link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
May 3, 2005, 04:58:48 PM EDT
|
Post #205,766
5/3/05 5:34:11 PM
|
Skip, you're an exception
According to polls, and overwhelming majority of people who call themselves devout Christians voted for Bush in the last election.
If they are all so bitter, why are they voting for the politicians who are doing the hijacking?
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #205,769
5/3/05 6:06:46 PM
5/3/05 6:07:14 PM
|
Are you sure?
That it wasn't that the overwhelming majority of those who voted for Bush called themselves 'devout'? *grin*
What percentage of the citizens of this country are Christian? 'Christian'?
What percentage of those voted for Bush? Is THAT number 'overwhelming'?
A quick google yielded this:
[link|http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103|http://people-press....p3?AnalysisID=103]
Here, it can be seen that religious composition of the vote DID favor Bush, but it's by no means overwhelming. There was a big (10%) percentage jump in evangelicals voting for Bush, but they weren't even near a majority of voters.
IOW, there is no 'overwhelming majority' of Christians that voted for Bush as a whole, though a majority of a minority subset of 'Christians' did.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
May 3, 2005, 06:07:14 PM EDT
|
Post #205,770
5/3/05 6:20:58 PM
|
Look at your link more closely
The sub-table titled "Church Attend". That's across all denominations, and measures devoutness pretty concretely - how often you go to Church.
The vote was about evenly split among those who claim to go to Church a few times a month. People who go more frequently were for Bush. People who go less frequently were against Bush. At the maximum frequency of several times a week, Bush won 64-35, which I'd call a pretty overwhelming margin. At the minimum frequency of never, Kerry won 63-36, which is likewise pretty overwhelming.
I've seen other pre-election polls where people were asked how devout they were and who they planned to vote for. The results were pretty much in line with the results that your link shows.
There is a strong correlation in this country between how devout you are (measured in any reasonable way) and how likely you are to support Bush.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #205,781
5/3/05 6:59:21 PM
|
Extremes
At the maximum frequency of several times a week, Bush won 64-35; 16%
At the minimum frequency of never, Kerry won 63-36; 15%
Again, the 'overwhelming majority' only applies to minority sets.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #205,784
5/3/05 7:30:03 PM
|
What portion of the country is devout?
You're arguing that I'm talking about a minority of a minority and then tarring all Christians.
This is unfair. I said up front devout Christians. Most people are not that devout, devout Christians are a subset of all Christians. I'm very specifically not saying all Christians, just devout ones. Here we're identifying 15% of the population as being devout based on behaviour, and we find that Bush won by 2-1 odds in that group.
But let's change that slightly. Let's widen it to people who are devout enough to go to Church weekly (which is what most religions say that you're supposed to do). If we take the 44% of the population that goes to Church at least once a week we find that (does some calculations) Bush won over Kerry by 60% to 39%. That's a 3-2 margin, which is still fairly overwhelming.
Now there is one thing that I got wrong. These are figures for those who voted. Voter turnout was pathetic. If we make an obvious correction, what I should have said is, an overwhelming majority of voters who call themselves devout Christians voted for Bush in the last election. I think that the evidence is pretty clear for that statement.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #205,792
5/3/05 7:45:08 PM
|
I'll accept that.
60/39 isn't what I'd call 'overwhelming', though it is a clear majority. "...minority of a minority and then tarring all Christians" Actually, I saw your qualifier - I just don't accept that "most devout"="devout". My problem was that ANDREW seemed to be making that argument. [link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #205,795
5/3/05 7:58:12 PM
|
If you assume the polls had a representative sample...
|
Post #205,798
5/3/05 8:08:19 PM
|
Polling is fairly accurate
We know how to do it. We know how to do it wrong, but we also know how to do it right. Normally we do a decent job of it.
Furthermore it isn't just one poll, every major poll that I've seen in the last few years which addresses any variant of this question has come up with the same basic answer. The more religious you are, the more likely it is that you support Bush. Unless all polling organizations have serious methodology problems (which I strongly doubt), the country is politically polarized along religious grounds.
:-(Incidentally that kind of polarization is a significant risk factor for totalitarianism.)-:
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #205,811
5/3/05 11:07:10 PM
|
Is it "religious" or "church going christian"?
I'd be interested to know how Bush played with orthodox jews and devout muslims for instance.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #205,819
5/4/05 12:10:38 AM
|
IIRC, both of those flipped
In 2000 Bush lead among Muslims and lost among orthodox Jews.
In 2004 Bush lead among orthodox Jews and lost among Muslims.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #205,804
5/3/05 8:55:01 PM
|
agreed the repo in my house isnt an ardent church goer
just likes bush and takes him at face value. And the campeign to push out negatives on backfired, she took one look at moore, said he is an asshole and ignored all other statements made about bush
thanx,
bill
All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett
[link|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/]
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
