h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The current US administration is taking a page off the Libertarian platform... that the government is a screw-up in just about everything it does, so as many functions as can be privatized, should be.

As an application for this page, they have chosen charity... care for the homeless, and that sort of thing. The people who do this sort of thing in the US are often churches. They serve the homeless a couple bowls of soup, provide them a cot and a blanket, and then spend some time filling them with fire and brimstone.

Sometimes the people can ignore the fire and brimstone bit, because the food and the cot are worth it. And sometimes, they stay away, because the fire and brimstone puts them off their appetite.

So how does the government propose to privatize this? They want to give government money to the charities that provide this function.

That means:

1) My tax dollars will be supporting proselytization, specifically proselytization of the poor and desperate... which is really unfair to them.
2) My tax dollars will be going to an unregulated private institution, and therefore:
3) My tax dollars will be going to any backwater church that makes a reasonable attempt at a homeless shelter, whether it is actually being utilized or not, and so:
4) Any of my tax dollars that remain after the shelter costs are met will go to line the pockets of some backwater church, or fund its activities, activities which I find unpalatable and would never willingly sponsor.

Clearly, the administration does not understand privatization. It means NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING!

Are there any arguments out there to support this action?

None that I can think of at the moment. Have you got any links for me to read up?

Here's a news item covering it: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/29/bush.faithbased.01/

And a brief criticism of it on the bottom of this, raising different objections than the ones I raised:
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0103/talkingpoints2.html

And since I was already there, and they had it on their front page, and it seemed relevant to the topic, a sensible exploration of the homelessness problem: http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0306/libsolutions.html

Cheers! I'll have a read.

A thought that has just occurred to me...

Although I dislike the idea of charity privatisation, isn't President Bush's evangelilstic tendancies a much more serious issue? He has made his faith no secret, and often uses it in his speeches.

There was an excellent documentary on this a few weeks ago. It asked: 'How dangerous is it to have the most powerful man in the world believing he is doing Gods work?' He truely believes that God is behind him in his decisions - a terrifying thought. I also heard that since Bush came to power, a huge proportion of Americans (Over 50%, if memory serves) describe themselves as 'Christian Fundamentalists' - another terrifying thought.

I see this religious charity issue as another facet of this man's incredible self-believe.

Anyway, back on topic...

After a reading those links, the only counter argument I can see is that some charities will be guaranteed income.

There are so many better arguments against doing it.

Well, this is something of a disappointment of a debate.

Let's see if some of our socialist friends can weigh in on the issue before this one dies completely, though.

The US government plans to "privatise" charity?

It's a logical fallicy. Charity is, by it's very nature, about giving money away. Privatisation means "handing over to non-state organisations", invariably a profiting corporation.

You cannot profit from charity, so this motion makes no sense.

From what Blatherskite said, this seems like a backhanded way of the Government providing tax-dollars to private business on the "assumption" that they will be used for charitable purposes. This is either 1) dumb or 2) a(nother) way of private enterprise obtaining public money.

Since it's government money, we can see this as similar to welfare, except that welfare *has* to be spent on those who need it. As I see it, this is government money going to non-state profit-making organisations.

AAAAarrrrrrrrrghhhhhhh!

I misunderstood. Reading Blather's post again, it seems that it's *churches* who get the money.

Ignore my previous post. It was rubbish anyway (partly because the thing I was discussing made little sense).

Actually, I see the logic in what they are trying to do. It's *government* money but the government does not dictate how the money is used. The "privatisation" thing is just an ideological pay-off, to make it sound sexy and free-market. It's basically giving these charities money and then letting them do what they want with it.

So, pretty much the same as what probably went before then.

I'm a bit worried, though about the fact that the people helping the homeless are religious types. The homeless are perfect fodder for religious indocrtrination. Are there no secular charities working with the homeless? (and I know that last bit was off-topic, but still)

Zag

There are secular charities. This new plan gives the secular charities and the churches equal footing in gaining government funding for their activities. They can both submit bids and be considered equally.

Except, when our president takes the mental out of fundamentalism, would they really be equal?

Better yet... should they be?

Whether they are equal depenends on outlook.

As an agnostic, I prefer secular charities only interested in helping the unfortunate to recieve the money. In fact, I see them as truly moral as they have nothing personally to gain (unless they syphon off the cash, but that's another story ) from their work.

Religious organisations can be argued as using charity as a platform for recruitment, and I'm uncomfortable with that. I would prefer people to find their religious beliefs themselves, rather than have someone drum them into them following the (tempting) offer of a bed and food.

I noticed that the first two articles linked to were from January 2001. Does anyone know how this plan played out over the last couple of years?

I noticed that in the first article it said something along the lines that there was a set dollar amount that would now be available to religious as well as secular organizations. I wonder how the secular organizations that were already established were affected when the funding was (I assume?) spread thinner.

I agree Bush's evangelistic tendancies are dangerous.

He seems to want to force his religion on the American people. He's doing everything he can to make birthcontrol and abortion illegal and he came pretty close to the firing Secretary of State Colin Powell for suggesting that people should use condoms if they were going to have sex before marrige.


However this whole debate is rather pointless unless we can get some theists to join the ODS. Almost everyone here will proably be equally convinced that using government mony for religious groups is bad.

As far as I know, nothing has happened yet, but there's been a lot of argument on the subject in the US press.

Also, re my previous posting, the whole Republican party in the US (Bush's party) seems to demonstrate the same danger as Bush does. Their party platform is, in part, to support laws that force the teachings of protesant Christianity on the whole US population. (They don't say that, but a lot off their goals amount to that.)

They put forth strengthing the death penalty ,lowering the age and refusing DNA tests before death penalties. They push for reversing abortion rights, stopped cloning efforts all because of religious beliefs. They said that religious organizations have a right to refuse service to those that are not in line with their thinking. It is also alright to "preach to them" THis is not at all the same as the governement overseeing things.

They have prayer meetings weekly (maybe daily)in the white house. Only Christian ones though as far as I know. (It was that way last year) The Bush administration has talked continuously about a Supreme Court position coming up and who he wants in there. No one has said they are leaving! I find this disrespectful.

They have Christian Leadership asking for people to pray about being able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice of their Right wing Religious choosing. EEK!

I am not for any of this.

I think a faith-based charity might work. Hear me out on this one, 'kay?

If you give money to the United Way, have you ever thought about where the money goes? It goes to helping people, yes. But they produce commercials, don't they? And they have employees who are paid for what they do. And they have dinners to raise money for charity, which is great, except they have to pay for the food rooms, service, etc.

My point is, there are an awful lot of charities out there who spend a majority of the money they make on fundraising. And it isn't just an American problem... I saw a major critique of charities in Canada earlier this year.

Now, take a religious institution (and this would, by definition, have to include synagogues, mosques, etc) which already has a charitable giving program in place and doesn't need to fundraise or advertise, because that's just what they're supposed to do. Sure, they'll try to convert people, but they'll also have a program in place already which just needs to keep going and expanding.

Now, where would you rather have your money go when it comes to charity? To an institution that might use your check for a commercial starring a sports star or knowing for a fact that it's going to helping someone that's going to have somewhere to eat tonight?

There are complications, of course, but I think it could be a better system. That is, as long as the cash is evenly distributed, otherwise it's unconstitutional, and unethical.

By the way, abbi, the Christian leader you speak of is Pat Robertson. As I Christian, I believe he talks to a power greater than himself. But it isn't God.

I agree that fundraising is difficult no matter who is doing it. I do not see how segregating the money given is helping. The more established charities have been hurt by it.

Thanks for the name (P.R.) it had escaped me. I try to remove it from my memory, it always returns I am glad you added that you do not believe he speaks to or for God.
His "PR" has done much to keep people away from God.

Many of these faith orgs did not treat drug addiction, find jobs, have overnight beds,babysitting. The usually go for food and clothing. They can refuse anyone that will not subscribe to their individual program. When the program money went to the Fed programs ,by law there was no descrimination. That I am sure is an exaggeration.

Meals on Wheels to name just one, in this city- lost tons of money and they have a proven track record. Their money% was removed and it went to someone who was legally allowed to set up a new program. Helping is not easy , it also takes education and experience.
*"Meals on wheels" delivers meals once a day to shut-ins. For many it is the only meal they have daily. They are unable to travel to get their meal or have the money to purchase one.

How would Pat Robertion spend that money?
Whether we think he is legitament man of God or not does not matter.
It is whether the Fed government thinks he is. I think you can guess where he could use some money.
He believes he is doing good now. Nothing will keep him from doing the same with his new Federal money.

I don't know about people like him (sigh), but Robertson himself is not as much a threat as he used to be.

Pres. Bush is actually pretty ticked at him right now. He made some infamous comments after 9/11 that spoiled some of the unity that we as Americans were feeling, he supported the one-child policy in China, and supported Taylor in Liberia. (The last of these was because he has gold interests in Liberia, not because Taylor said he was a Christian while committing horrific war crimes)

One other thing, the Fed programs have a 'no discrimination' policy, but the money can still be misspent or embezzeled.