O’Bama’s Bait-Based Initiative
July 6th, 2008 by jack
Well, according to E. J. Dionne, Jr., our favorite Black Irishman, Barry H. O’Bama, wants to revamp W’s “Faith-Based Initiative.” Mr. O’Bama wants to call the office the ”Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.” Funny he should choose that last word. You see, the whole problem with W’s Faith-Based Initiative was the ol’ bait-and-switch. Get the religious charities dependent on federal largess, then force them to hire active homosexuals, adulterers, “alternate lifestylers,” etc. Then, when Catholic Charities refuses to go hire people who are blatant, unrepentant sinners, the leftists say, “How disgusting — they’re willing to let people go hungry rather than hire a homosexual.”
Obama is not shy about this: “Obama would keep the religious exemption from federal civil rights laws for congregations but apply them to specific programs sponsored by the congregations that accepted federal money.” (Emphasis mine.) And how long would that last? Only until the charities have swollowed the bait, then the leftists will set the hook, and drop the words “specific programs sponsored by.” The same applies now to any school accepting federal funds — that’s why VMI was forced to accept women.
One root of the problem, again showing that W is not a conservative, is also pointed out in the article: “Under Bush, [O’Bama] said, ‘you took resources from some programs and gave them to others without clear criteria for why the funds were shifted.’” Exactly. What makes bureaucrats in the feral government more qualified to say which charities deserve your money than you are? Nothing.
Another root is the leftist notion, as stated by Dionne, that “support for religious groups can’t be an excuse for government (sic)backing out of its responsibilities.” Certainly this is true, but what does he think the government’s responsibilities are? Caring for the poor and downtrodden is our responsibility, not the feral government’s. (State constitutions, of course, may be different.) That is why leftists “give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood,” according to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks:
The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
That’s socialists for you, generous to your last dime, and they know better than you where it should go.
How about this instead: a 50% tax deduction for charitable contributions.
Right now, the lower your income, the less you get to deduct. If you are in the 10% tax bracket, and donate $100 to your church, you get $10 off your taxes. Someone in the 33% bracket gets $33 off his taxes. (Don’t the leftists say our tax code should be more “fair”?)
So, with a 50% deduction, not part of the standard deduction, everyone would get an equal break for charitable contributions, the feral government would essentially be matching one’s donations dollar-for-dollar, and we, not bureaucrats or congresscritters, would decide which charities to support.
This entry was posted on Sunday, July 6th, 2008 at 7:51 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008, Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
“Brooks says he started this book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did”.
Quote from a review found at community.beliefnet.com
I can’t help but wonder how it’s found out whether a donor is a conservative or a liberal. I’m a rather liberal (moneywise) donor and I have NEVER been asked to show whether I’m conservative or liberal. HOPE, CARE, Doctors without Borders, Salvation Army. etal don’t seem to give a hoot where I stand.
Some of the contents of your first paragraph is despicable. Example: Get the religious charities dependent of federal largess, then FORCE THEM TO HIRE ACTIVE HOMOSEXUALS, ADULTERERS, “ALTERNATE LIFE STYLERS” etc. (caps mine).
Who is going to force them to hire the people you mention, who I ask? You are vile in you unfounded accusations.
Conservatives give more blood! Were you asked at the blood bank to state your political leanings? If not,how would anyone know?
“Caring for the poor and downtrodden is OUR responsibility not the feral (sic) government’s.”
Remember! “L’etat c’est moi”, (in this case “nous”).
July 7th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Lovisa,
While there is no 100% census of persons giving to charities, it is certainly possible to have whatever confidence level you specify in finding out if there is a difference through statistical means. While it is true that poor quality polls can produce poor quality results, it is very possible that a poll of people could find giving levels and “conservative/liberal” values.
As to churches being forced to hire homosexuals, how about any of the following links:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2386871/Tribunal-fines-Church-England-47000-for-refusing-to-hire-homosexual
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:5RAtUKaICZkJ:www.e-thepeople.org/article/38027/view%3Fviewtype%3Dbest%26skip%3D10+church+hire+homosexual&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55145
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-carbone061902.asp
There are many more, these are somewhat recent. And yes, it appears the state is willing to force the issue.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Lovisa, there were several ways in which the surveys were conducted. Regular blood donors are sometimes given special cards depending on how much they have donated.
One study conducted by ABC (hardly a conservative organization) revealed that “almost all of the people who gave to our [Salvation Army] bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.”
Here is an interview with the author, if you’re interested.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
i think it’s funny that he talks about “conservatives who practice their religion etc.” and “secular liberals.” reading that quote he’s either excluding liberals that attend church and conservatives that are not religious or calling church attenders conservative and non-attenders liberal. it seems like he’s stacking the deck to make his case. it is interesting how some people really have trouble thinking beyond simple and concerete classifications for people; i think it’s the same people that are always bringing up race as if were the most important quality of a person. this pattern of thinking must have something to do with frontal lobe dysfunction.
and jack, i thought you would say that it was the government’s job to enforce Christian morality, for example, only heterosexual couples can obtain marital benefits. why shouldn’t the government enforce Christian charity as well?
and why all the anger toward gays and lesbians? are you one of those folks protesting military funerals?
July 7th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Read more carefully, el jefe. It is the author of the article, Frank Brieaddy, who uses the terms “conservatives who practice their religion” and “secular liberals,” and the quote clearly does point out that these limited groups are at opposite ends of the donation spectrum.
It is not the government’s job to enforce Christian Morality. It some cases where it overlaps the proper function of government, great.
As for homosexuals and marriage, I would prefer that the government take no part in marriage at all. As it is, the government gives out benefits, my money, based on marriage. Thus, I do not want my tax money to support immoral behavior.
The anger toward homosexuals is a reaction to their demands that we accept their choices and actions as moral.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:49 am
Hello!,