Bush: "All drunks are welcome" faith-based policy

[Bluebear]

WASHINGTON Mar 1, 2005 — President Bush on Tuesday dismissed criticism that his plan to steer public money to religious charities might discriminate against people who did not share their beliefs, saying those groups should have an "all drunks are welcome" policy.

Speaking to more than 250 religious leaders invited by the White House, Bush vented his frustration that Congress has not approved the idea he first offered soon after he took office to let religious charities spend taxpayer money.

"Charitable choice is something I've supported every year, and every year it's got stuck," Bush said. "There's kind of a consistent pattern there."

Bypassing Congress, Bush has used executive orders and regulations to give religious organizations equal footing with nonsectarian groups in competing for federal contracts. "Since Congress isn't moving, I will," Bush told the religious leaders, whom he addressed as "leaders in the armies of compassion." He raised the possibility of further executive action, though it was unclear what more Bush could order.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=543129&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[journalist3072]

1. Good grief, can he get any more embarassing?

Or (wink, wink) was he drunk when he made that statement?!

I see what he was getting at, but he could have expressed himself differently by saying "Any entity that accepts faith based money must be welcoming to people of all faiths" and leave it at that.

[RevCheesehead]

2. While many here are fearful of the implications about religion,

that "religion will be forced upon those who don't want it," I am even MORE fearful that this could be an attempt at government-regulated religion.

Tax dollars to the church? Isn't that unconstitutional???

[journalist3072]

5. Here's my concern with faith-based initiatives

1. I'm afraid that the government will use faith-based initiatives as an excuse to underfund, or completely eliminate, certain social programs. I worry they may say "Well the church is taking care of this, so we don't need to fund it anymore."

2. I worry the government will try to run the chuches; tell them how to conduct their business.

[mermaid]

6. Here's MY Concern With Faith-Based Initiatives

They will refuse help to any who do not "pass muster" with the organization administering the charity. Example, nothing says thaty cannot turn away gays, transgender folks...others who do not share that religious organizations values/politics.

I am afraid that those receiving "help" will only get it at the expense of being forced or coerced into attending "bible Study" brainwash sessions, etc.

If they want Faith-Biased (sic) Initiative...then it has to be that they cannot turn away ANYONE with a legitimate need, FOR ANY REASON... and may not attach ANY conditions upon reciept of that aid. no "Bible Study" brainwash sessions, no proseltyzing, none of it.

[RevCheesehead]

7. Exactly my thoughts.

And as a pastor, it's #2 that has me most concerned.

[Pithy Cherub]

3. Symbolism...

An 'army' of compassion...doesn't really work for me. :eyes:

[mwb970]

4. I guess he was trying to add a light touch.

I saw the clip. It was actually pretty funny, for him, though it was no "need any wood?".