I heard this on NPR today and it made my draw drop. Not to mention the feelings of anger start to form.
I couldn’t find the NPR reference, but I did find this:
Apparently The Bush administration has taken some taxes away from Child support enforcement and applied it to organizations that promote marriage education.
From the article:
I am more pissed that money is taken from enforcing child support than the fact that a goverment administration is using tax dollars to promote it’s Ideals of Faith. (The whole Faith based Initiative thing.)
Pitiful rant, I know- I am too pissed about it to put it in GD though.
While I am also against the Administration’s blurring of church-state separation, and get the impression that at least some of the programs mentioned are the right-wing equivalent of Midnight Basketball -
the OP’s assertion that “The Bush administration has taken some taxes away from Child support enforcement and applied it to organizations that promote marriage education.” appears misleading. The impression I got from the linked story was not that money was being confiscated from child support enforcement programs, but that grant funds that could be better spent on direct enforcement efforts were going to church-related programs.
Italics mine. This actually says that child support enforcement system, under Tommy Thompson’s HHS Dept, is funding this. That is, HHS is expanding the “system” through grants. The articles doesn’t indicate whether the funding came from a pre-existsing child support enforcement budget or if that budget was expanded to include this program. It matters little to me. I want my church and state clearly separated and I’d rather err on the side of caution.
No, what I stated was from what NPR said, the article was an example, showing that they were not apparently talking out their asses. The lack of comprehension would come from them- not I, does it exist. More likely or not, your Idol of Perfection and Genius was being talked bad about and you knee started jerking. Why don’t you read and comprehend MY statments, jackass.
And I am non-political. I don’t vote, don’t normally even talk about politics.
If the fact that this pisses me off and the restrictions he puts on genetics does as well makes me a lefty, well woop de doo, go fuck off you damn righty. Hope your happy with your enlarged forarm from yanking your own dick some more with your amazing “spot the lefty politically inclined genius”.
I just don’t understand how “promoting marriage” is going to help poor single-parent families. I’m sure a lot of these people would LOVE to be in a stable family environment, but that just wasn’t in the cards for them, or they wouldn’t be single parents in the first place.
It strikes me that couples in a church group probably already have a lot of community support. Many churches already have mandatory marriage councilling before they will preform the ceremony. What is this funding supposed to accomplish? Church-going couples, according to a study I once read, are more unlikely to divorce anyway.
I see… you don’t vote or get involved in politics, you’d rather just sit back uninvolved and then bitch about what officials elected by people who do vote do. I’m not a big Bush fan, but I’d care more about whether you agree or disagree with political actions if you cared enough to at least spend 5 minutes every 4 years to cast a freakin’ vote. When you can do that, then you’ll have a much more vested interest in ranting about what is being done by the administration.
Before conclusions like the OP’s are jumped to, though, it would be useful to know how much has been spent in previous administrations on “child support enforcement”. Are Bush and Co. spending less/more/more effectively? Can’t tell from this story, which is a quick and dirty church/state separation controversy piece.
Might also be nice to know what track record these groups have in social programs. But generating a detailed, thoughtful story would take time and you gotta fill up that website with something.
**
We agree. Neither of the groups cited sounds like Rev. Bob and the Proselytizers, but as I indicated earlier, the entire “faith-based initiative” gives me gas.
No, I would let things go as they do and bitch about it if I don’t like it. If I get a flat I shouldn’t bitch right? I mean, I am the one that chose to drive a vehicle with air-filled tires right?
I don’t want to get into the reasons I don’t vote, so I will just give a simplistic answer- It is a waste of my time to get involved in politics- because of the very nature of politics. I don’t like it, and voting wouldn’t change the fact that I do not like it. It would be hypocritical of me to do so.
That said, if I did vote, I would have voted for Bush. His tendency to let his religious persuasion to leak out or not. I did not like Gore.
This seems contrary to what Brutus said, and I think Brutus is a moron and I don’t understand his “lefty as usual” comment- apparently he has gotten me mixxed up with another poster that is on the hard Democratic side. I am niether.
I am not some sheep like moron that picks my issues based on which SIDE I am on. I like some left issues, and I like some right issues. Depends on what the issue is. People who vote for somebody that is Democrat or Republican JUST because they think they are Right or Left are morons. Plain and simple. Flame away, I don’t care. Picking sides on issues based off of political persuasion is stupid. That is why I do not vote.
A couple who gets married in a religious ceremony isn’t necessarily the same thing as a church-going couple. Plenty of people only set foot in religious institutions for such life-cycle events as weddings and funerals.
I just remember what a heck of a time my now-husband and I had in trying to find a church that would marry us. I wanted to get married in a church, not for religious reasons, but because they’re beautiful, and would accomodate all of the guests I wanted to invite.
Most refused us outright because we were not parishoners, and the others insisted we attend pre-marriage councilling. Perhaps other cities are different, but we ended up marrying in a courtroom.
I can’t imagine any of these institutions meriting funding to encourage marriage. If anything, they * discouraged * us. Unless they change their policies on marrying non-church members, the purpose of the funding is defeated. I can imagine a lot of couples saying, “To hell with it. Let’s just keep living together,” rather than convert just to be able to use the facilites, or go through several weeks of prostelytisement masquerading as “marriage councilling.”
Ya know, a church isn’t a ‘facility’ for you to use just because they are pretty. They are places of worship for people who believe in a higher power. And you’re mad at them because they have a strange desire not to have their sacred place used as a facility by non-believers? Just the fact that they would allow you in at all with counselling is pretty damned nice of them, if you ask me.
I’m not particularly religious, but that attitude is rather insensitive, don’t you think?
