Who is going to take care of all the needy people if not people of faith?<quoted text>
"Former President Bush's effort to make the social safety net more religious, was one of the flash points of the culture wars that raged as he came to office in 2001: Funding religious groups, well placed in communities to serve the needy, was criticized for the potential for proselytizing and hiring bias using tax dollars.
Today, experts say the initiatives sparked more political debate than meaningful change to the social service landscape. Perhaps most important, the initiatives carried forward in different ways by the Obama administration "overcame the 'culture of resistance' " to such government-religious partnerships, noted a 2009 study of the program by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government and the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy."
You believe our taxpayer dollars should fund religious projects, and I don't. I believe funding churches, is the job of the people who attend them.
No one should have to contribute to anyone else's church, and that's basically what 'faith-based initiative' is all about.....making me fund the application of your religious views, whether or not I agree with them.
In emphasizing specific goals, Obama has broken with the Bush approach, says Daly. Policy priorities cover economic recovery, maternal and child health (including reducing unwanted pregnancies), responsible fatherhood, and interfaith cooperation.
Obama is still eager to work with faith-based groups on unmet needs, says DuBois. For instance, in 2011, the US Department of Agriculture funded 1,465 new religious sites to serve food during the summer to kids who qualify for subsidized lunches.
"President Obama said,'How about we focus on how we can help people who are facing specific challenges [and] bring in any faith-based organizations that want to help solve those challenges?' " says DuBois.