You want those who can't take care of themselves punished.
You see jesus' peaceful message as going into foriegn lands and killing/torturing heathens.
Freedom of religion means you better be christian.
SS
HA! Nice additions, especially on that last one, though - it is quite revealing to investigate Bush's "Faith-Based Initiative" program. Not ONE non-Christian organization has received funding under this program. Hmmm...
**************************************************************************************
Is Bush tilting the faith-based playing field in Christians' favor?
Clarence Page
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON -- Constitutionally we Americans are not supposed to have religious tests for public office holders. But, informally, we do.
That's why, for example, so many politicians who otherwise might not have stepped into a church since their baptisms somehow find their way back with great enthusiasm during campaign time.
A far more serious question arises when it looks like politicians might have a religious test for deciding whom should receive government services.
That question has arisen with new vigor lately, as the administration seeks additional funding for "faith-based initiatives," a jewel in President Bush's crown of "compassionate conservatism."
The charge emerged during "The Jesus Factor," PBS Frontline's hourlong exploration last Thursday of how George W. Bush became a born-again Christian and whether it affects his policies as president.
At issue was the Compassion Capital Fund, which is designed to help organizations successfully apply for federal grants.
Of the $100 million that the Department of Health and Human Services has given to the agency, the documentary said, "no charities run by Jewish, Muslim or other non-Christian faiths" have received money from the fund, although some have applied.
After that genuinely hot-sounding news item arched my eyebrows, I reached the man in charge of children and family issues at HHS, Assistant Secretary Wade Horn. He denied both Frontline's dollar figure and the bias allegation. Yet, he also acknowledged that Frontline was not entirely wrong.
The fund has distributed only $65 million so far, he said, and he named several Jewish-affiliated service organizations that have received grants.
However, he explained that those were small $50,000 "capacity-building" grants that were not given directly by the federal government but distributed indirectly through "intermediary organizations" to local community agencies.
There are 31 intermediary grant recipients nationwide. So far, Horn acknowledged, none of them have been affiliated with non-Christian religions. But he denied that there was bias, pointing out that the 31 were chosen from a much larger pool of 650 applications. Only the strongest survived, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack of one, he said.
Still, the widespread perception persists that it helps to be not only faith-based but based in the right faith, too. For example, in a piece titled "Faith Healing," the online edition of The American Prospect, a leading policy journal of liberal opinion, describes a United Veterans of America (UVA) shelter in Northampton, Mass. It was repeatedly turned down for funding, the article says, until its director complained to their congressmen and declared the shelter to be a "faith-based" agency. Presto! Their federal funding tripled.
"I'm not getting out-Jesused for money ever again," the director says. "That's a horrible thing to do to people."
In March, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives announced that it had awarded more than $1.1 billion to religious charities from a group of 140 competitive grants. Horn described how the selection process takes geography into account in distributing money as wisely as possible, but not religious denomination.
"I think the fairest way to run a competition is to run a fair competition," said Horn. "We certainly reached out to the broad faith-based community to send applications to us to become intermediaries. Besides, I don't think the people receiving the services -- alcohol treatment, drug treatment, refugee resettlement -- care about which religion is helping to provide the services they need. They are just happy to receive the services."
That's a fair point. Nevertheless, the administration is inviting further suspicions and perhaps legal or political action if the perception of bias persists.
Bush has stated repeatedly that, while his faith is central to his personal well-being, it does not effect his federal policy decisions. Yet, I do not have space here to list the many decisions he has made during his three years in office that closely parallel the dominant political views of his Christian evangelical base. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Instead of trying to sort that out, I do what many other voters do: I try to judge politicians by what they do, since what they say doesn't always tell you what they really believe.
The President made a valid point when he said government too often discriminated against perfectly good social services because they were religiously affiliated. Government should not tilt the playing field against religious groups unfairly when they are trying to help.
But government should not tilt the field unfairly in their favor, either.
-----
Tribune Media Services
