Spring Break
Questions Remain About Faith-Based Initiatives
A Viewpoint
Jacqueline Smith
Issue date: 2/22/01 Section: City
Now that President George “Dubya” Bush is beginning to find his way around the Oval Office, it’s time to refute every new proposal he plans on proposing. Why, you ask? Because I’m still bitter about the election, and I don’t plan on “getting over it” anytime soon.
One of the many stupid plans that needs to be addressed is his "Faith-Based Initiative." Aside from the obvious fact that the Constitution’s division of church and state—which makes our country unique from most others—will be violated, there are other reasons that have been overlooked that explain why this initiative is inherently bad.
The initiative is a plan that Dubya birthed in Texas in 1996, where faith-based organizations can apply for grants that will fund welfare reformation, crime-fighting, elderly recreational and combative poverty programs through the church. I will admit that the plan sounds good. I mean, finally here’s a plan that will reform welfare and end the trap of dependency in which many of its constituents find themselves. It may also relieve some of the $5.4 trillion dollars that have been spent on social programs since the ‘60s.
The program was quite successful in Texas. But guess what Dubya? You’re not in Texas anymore.
Since social programs are funded by taxes, the elimination of social programs allows for tax-cuts, which is why Dubya can propose a $1.6 trillion dollar tax-cut. This proposed tax-cut will also benefit the rich more than the rest of us with modest incomes.
But one aspect of the plan that Dubya is missing is the definition of a church. Some could argue that there is a fine line between a church and a cult. Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus defines cult: /kult/ n.
Ritualistic religious system.
My question is, who determines the difference between a church and a cult? This is why I think that Dubya hasn’t thought out this initiative well enough. I know whoever decides what is a church or who can apply for these grants will be biased especially when it comes to controversial churches asking for money but performing social services for the betterment of society. I would think the Nation of Islam would not receive the same amount of money as the Roman Catholic Church.
Another flaw in the plan is the element of human nature. In Bush’s plan, it is not a requirement to be a member of the church in order to participate in the programs they offer. However, I think there would be a preference for members of a church rather than those who are not members to receive any benefits.
Ideally, his plan has a nice philosophy but it would be hard to carry out.
E-mail Jacqueline Smith at jpsmith@howard.edu.
One of the many stupid plans that needs to be addressed is his "Faith-Based Initiative." Aside from the obvious fact that the Constitution’s division of church and state—which makes our country unique from most others—will be violated, there are other reasons that have been overlooked that explain why this initiative is inherently bad.
The initiative is a plan that Dubya birthed in Texas in 1996, where faith-based organizations can apply for grants that will fund welfare reformation, crime-fighting, elderly recreational and combative poverty programs through the church. I will admit that the plan sounds good. I mean, finally here’s a plan that will reform welfare and end the trap of dependency in which many of its constituents find themselves. It may also relieve some of the $5.4 trillion dollars that have been spent on social programs since the ‘60s.
The program was quite successful in Texas. But guess what Dubya? You’re not in Texas anymore.
Since social programs are funded by taxes, the elimination of social programs allows for tax-cuts, which is why Dubya can propose a $1.6 trillion dollar tax-cut. This proposed tax-cut will also benefit the rich more than the rest of us with modest incomes.
But one aspect of the plan that Dubya is missing is the definition of a church. Some could argue that there is a fine line between a church and a cult. Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus defines cult: /kult/ n.
Ritualistic religious system.
My question is, who determines the difference between a church and a cult? This is why I think that Dubya hasn’t thought out this initiative well enough. I know whoever decides what is a church or who can apply for these grants will be biased especially when it comes to controversial churches asking for money but performing social services for the betterment of society. I would think the Nation of Islam would not receive the same amount of money as the Roman Catholic Church.
Another flaw in the plan is the element of human nature. In Bush’s plan, it is not a requirement to be a member of the church in order to participate in the programs they offer. However, I think there would be a preference for members of a church rather than those who are not members to receive any benefits.
Ideally, his plan has a nice philosophy but it would be hard to carry out.
E-mail Jacqueline Smith at jpsmith@howard.edu.
Be the first to comment on this story