Re: w. supports his privates

Date: Mon Feb 12 2001 - 16:43:50 PST

"ross" writes:

<<But when it comes to social programs, I'm with GG; whether it's the
Socrates-based recidivism reduction program I read about last year in
the Humanist, a fundamentalist Christian social program like
Ms. Fletcher's miracle house in Dayton, any of the various Quaker
programs I've seen, or Alcoholics Anonymous, I tend to approve of
faith-based social programs.>>

not what i said, "ross." some faith-based ORGANIZATIONS administer totally
secular PROGRAMS - with no overlap - unlike those organizations you mentioned
that blend adherence to salvation doctrines with their charity. i'm not down
with that at all - not into the end justifies the means. i am for secular
programs with measureable outcomes, which government funding sources demand.
the government usually allocates a very small percentage for administration;
there's nothing "left over" to go to religious support.

i'm in total agreement with jeff when he writes:

In a message dated 2/12/01 6:01:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

<< I have no problem with faith-based organizations, or funding faith-based
 organizations, or relying on faith-based organizations to provide certain
 social services that the gov't has unfortunately decided to provide itself
 in the past. I *do* have a problem with funding the fed to in turn fund
 religious organizations. >>

except for the "unfortunately." :-)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:17:38 PDT