Clinton Speaks about Bush- - Page 7

wendybeth · 09-21-2005, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Jesus, though, wouldn't expect the government to do anything for the poor and sick. He would expect those who call him Savior and Lord to be out doing it.

Our current goverment has made much ado about being 'Christian'- so they are exempt because they govern? Bs, Scaegles, and you know it.

sleepyjeff · 09-21-2005, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Our current goverment has made much ado about being 'Christian'- so they are exempt because they govern? Bs, Scaegles, and you know it.

I think those who oppose the President make a bigger deal about his being Christian then does he......

PanTheMan · 09-21-2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I read somewhere that some group was passing out New Testaments to Katrina victims. Like this meets any need they had at the time?

I know! I mean if thry needed Toilet paper, why not hand the "The Koran"??

scaeagles · 09-21-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Our current goverment has made much ado about being 'Christian'- so they are exempt because they govern? Bs, Scaegles, and you know it.

To the contrary - I know no such thing, In fact, there has been much complaining - here on this board as well, I point out - that the Bush administration would dare have his dreaded faith based initiatives to help the poor and needy. "Separation of church and state!" is the cry. Don't tell me it's bs, WB. The government has always sucked at helping the poor and needy (how much has been spent on the "war on poverty?????), and a new approach to try to integrate faith based organizations was derided wholeheartedly.

Name · 09-21-2005, 06:36 AM

But from my experience, many faith based organizations seem to help the poor and needy for the publicity.(see my post above)

Or the faith based organizations place far more emphasis on the evangelizing and preaching then they do to actually helping.

scaeagles · 09-21-2005, 07:34 AM

Certainly true, Name.

However, so many great organizations are not like that. The Salvation Army is a good example. I could go on listing many great ones, but I'm certain that you could list many that are not. The larger ones with the established reputations are typically the best about really helping. Local ones are typically (from my experience) the offenders.

One that is lesser known that I support is an organization called Food for the Hungry. I've found that, just as one needs to do research when making an investment to make sure it is reputable, research is required prior to supporting any charitable organization, whether they consider themselves faith based or not.

Name · 09-21-2005, 03:06 PM

:gasp: that's twice in a thread that I agree with you, holy cow

wendybeth · 09-21-2005, 05:04 PM

The charities have always been welcome to step in and help out, Scaeagles. Why do they need to integrate with the government to do so? They want it all- tax-exempt status, government funding, and then they want to distribute it in the way they see fit to the ones they think are deserving. Again, we have a leader who proclaims to the heavens his born-again status, yet so many people are suffering on his watch, while he funnels money into a questionable war and gives out no-bid contracts to his Bechtel and Halliburton buds.

scaeagles · 09-21-2005, 06:07 PM

Aboslutely, WB (on the charities being welcome). However, the charities in place have less bureaucratic overhead and the people in place - typically volunteers - to get the job done. MUCH more gets to the people that need it than if it goes through the government.

Are you telling me that the Salvation Army picks and chooses who it helps? Or Food for the Hungry? Of course they have to choose where the money goes, but they aren't screening clients. These people aren't making profits - although there are understandably paid staff - and they do it one heck of a lot more efficiently than the government.

Nephythys · 09-21-2005, 06:14 PM

does anyone bother to notice that Haliburton has the contract BEFORE any of this happened? Or is it just easier to accuse someone of things?

By the way- someone being born again doesn't mean that suddenly bad things never happen to people....

Honestly-sometimes I think some people believe that people have to prove their faith to them- if that is not supreme arrogance I don't know what is.

09-21-2005, 06:36 AM	#65
Name Title Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: here Posts: 779	But from my experience, many faith based organizations seem to help the poor and needy for the publicity.(see my post above) Or the faith based organizations place far more emphasis on the evangelizing and preaching then they do to actually helping. __________________ Signature
	Submit to Quotes

09-21-2005, 07:34 AM	#66
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Certainly true, Name. However, so many great organizations are not like that. The Salvation Army is a good example. I could go on listing many great ones, but I'm certain that you could list many that are not. The larger ones with the established reputations are typically the best about really helping. Local ones are typically (from my experience) the offenders. One that is lesser known that I support is an organization called Food for the Hungry. I've found that, just as one needs to do research when making an investment to make sure it is reputable, research is required prior to supporting any charitable organization, whether they consider themselves faith based or not.
	Submit to Quotes

09-21-2005, 03:06 PM	#67
Name Title Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: here Posts: 779	:gasp: that's twice in a thread that I agree with you, holy cow __________________ Signature
	Submit to Quotes

09-21-2005, 05:04 PM	#68
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	The charities have always been welcome to step in and help out, Scaeagles. Why do they need to integrate with the government to do so? They want it all- tax-exempt status, government funding, and then they want to distribute it in the way they see fit to the ones they think are deserving. Again, we have a leader who proclaims to the heavens his born-again status, yet so many people are suffering on his watch, while he funnels money into a questionable war and gives out no-bid contracts to his Bechtel and Halliburton buds. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

09-21-2005, 06:07 PM	#69
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Aboslutely, WB (on the charities being welcome). However, the charities in place have less bureaucratic overhead and the people in place - typically volunteers - to get the job done. MUCH more gets to the people that need it than if it goes through the government. Are you telling me that the Salvation Army picks and chooses who it helps? Or Food for the Hungry? Of course they have to choose where the money goes, but they aren't screening clients. These people aren't making profits - although there are understandably paid staff - and they do it one heck of a lot more efficiently than the government.
	Submit to Quotes

09-21-2005, 06:14 PM	#70
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	does anyone bother to notice that Haliburton has the contract BEFORE any of this happened? Or is it just easier to accuse someone of things? By the way- someone being born again doesn't mean that suddenly bad things never happen to people.... Honestly-sometimes I think some people believe that people have to prove their faith to them- if that is not supreme arrogance I don't know what is.
	Submit to Quotes