Conference back40::soapbox

    
    I saw an article a few weeks ago in the Globe that pretty much said the
    same thing and that there was a movement by some congress-critters to
    privatize certain parts of the welfare system and turn them over to
    charitable institutions.
    
     The article stated that these institutions would be better able to get
    more "bang for the buck" vs. our efficient government system...
    
    
    

 Z   He indicated that the government had approached the Salvation Army to
 Z   take on a greater role in delivering social services but they would
 Z   have to comply to an incrible mountain of federal, state and local
 Z   regulations and would have to eleiminate any references to
 Z   religion. 
    
    And of course there's the rub.  Consider the public school system for a
    moment.  The school was run for the most part by the local church and
    has now become the great beaurocratic whore that stands today.
    
    The best way to gain control of an entity is to make it dependent upon
    you.  Then you have the power to manipulate it in any way you wish.  I
    too am amazed by Raspberry's column and find it interesting he would
    even propose such a measure.  I see the change as goodness.
    
    -Jack

    
    well Al, I get the Tribune daily, must have missed it somehow, then
    again I usually only scan the editorials.

    Yeah, Mark it was in Tuesday's and I was going to keep it for
    posterity, but I left it laying around and it got thrown out.
    

    
>    His conclusion was that these organizations should be getting more
>    support and proposed that any contribution to them be eliminated from
>    your tax bill.  nOt just a deduction, but a reduction of your taxes
>    equal to the contribution.  This would minimize the federal
>    governments' role in social services and place them in the hands of
>    people who really know what to do to help people rise above their
>    situation.

    This is pretty much the Libertarian proposal - contributions to
    charities that provide social services get a tax CREDIT as opposed to
    deduction.  Thus the incentive to give, yet remove the government
    Buracracy.
    
    	Skip

    
    > He used the Salvation Army as a reference point.  He talked about the
    > tremendous good that this organization does, the people they serve...

    This is extremely hard for me.  The Salvation Army is an organization
    that I have difficulty discussing.  They were DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for
    the murder of my sister.  If I might ask a favor, if you desire to
    donate clothing or money to a charitable organization, please, please,
    please give it to any organization OTHER THAN the Salvation Army. 
    Thank you.

    .6
    
    I understand that your sister's murder was, and is, a tragedy, but I
    have a really hard time believing that the Salvation Army is
    responsible for it.  Individual SA members might be, but not the
    organization, methinks.

>They were DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the murder of my sister.
    
     How's that work?

    From what I remember of the Salvation Army, their effectiveness as a
    charity with more "bang for the buck" stems from having a large
    network of voluntary workers and very low overhead, not from their 
    religion.
    
    I would not want our social services run by religious orders, they
    intrude too much in government as it is.  During the depression,
    churchs had strings firmly tied to their charity.  The poor were forced 
    to participate in church services to get a meal or a bed for the night, 
    with no respect for their actual religion or culture.  Newt Gingrich 
    is bad enough, on one wants the return of the Spanish Inquisition. 
    
    However, if the church (generic) in America where to give up their tax 
    exempt status then there would be no problem.  What they would pay on 
    their income and property would take a great big chunk out of the national 
    dept and really help get America back on it's feet, making charity
    unnecessary.                   

    >However, if the church (generic) in America where to give up their tax 
    >exempt status then there would be no problem.  What they would pay on 
    >their income and property would take a great big chunk out of the national 
    >dept and really help get America back on it's feet, making charity
    >unnecessary.                   
    
     <guffaw>

    
    
    
    Yeah, right.  You are showing your ignorance.  Church run charities do
    a heck of a lot for this nation at a very low overhead.  What you say
    is false.
    
    Mike

	Mike, I think he's talking about the huge amounts of land some churches
have, along with the large sums of $$$. 

	It would be interesting if we could see how much money they have spent
on candidates, and how much they have spent on charities. 

    
    
    Too bad you'll never know....
    

   .12, .13

	Glen, do you ever get the urge to sing "Me and My Shadow"? ;>

    
    Re:.7

    Dick, there is no way that I can encapsulate in a note all the various
    things that the SA did which lead to the murder of my sister.  But I
    assure you that you would probably come to realize their responsibility.  
    They did.

| <<< Note 621.14 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

| Glen, do you ever get the urge to sing "Me and My Shadow"? ;>

	Nah.... shadows are cool. 

    11. ?????
    
    >>Yeah, right.  You are showing your ignorance.  Church run charities
    do a heck of a lot for this nation at a very low overhead.  What you
    say is false.<<
    
    Huh!  I haven't said they don't do a lot for this country.  I also said
    they run charities efficiently WITH low overhead and expenses, but if 
    churches want a stake at the table they have to pay the price.  I have to 
    pay tax on my house, and I they don't have to pay tax on their houses 
    because of separation of church and state.  Those are the rules. 
    
    And, while I'm thinking of it, when was the last time you were the
    beneficiary of a church charity?  When did you have the humiliating
    experience of having to deny your real religion and give praise to God 
    before you could get a life saving slice of bread and a bowl of soup.
    

    I agree with this.  This is a form of misguided coersion.
    
    Jesus fed the 5000 with no strings attached.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    The Church is made up of the people, and the people already pay taxes.
    
    
    

    The Church is also a non-profit organization...

    
    re: .14
    
    Maybe you should ask Joe Oppelt...
    

    >And, while I'm thinking of it, when was the last time you were the
    >beneficiary of a church charity?  
    
    Actually, all my involvement with church charities has been of the
    giving variety, as opposed to the receiving variety. And yourself?
    
    >When did you have the humiliating
    >experience of having to deny your real religion and give praise to God 
    >before you could get a life saving slice of bread and a bowl of soup.
    
     Have you had this experience, or are you just implying this happens to
    malign churches in general? None of the church charities I've ever been
    associated with had any religious requirement in order to qualify for
    "a life saving slice of bread and a bowl of soup."
    
    

| <<< Note 621.21 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot." >>>

| Maybe you should ask Joe Oppelt...

	Milady.... do you have his new e-mail address?

    .18
    
    > Jesus fed the 5000 with no strings attached.
    
    Did he feed them?  Or did he shame a notoriously greedy people into
    sharing the provisions that travelers at that time habitually carried
    about their persons?  The latter would be IMHO a far more valuable
    lesson - share your blessings, don't count on miracles to feed your
    neighbor.

    
    
    <-----
    
    Them silly bible writers screw things up everytime.... don't they???
    
    I shoulda knowd that's what the moral of the account really meant!!!
    
    Silly me!!
    

  Z   The latter would be IMHO a far more valuable
  Z     lesson - share your blessings, don't count on miracles to feed your
  Z     neighbor.
    
    It may very well have been.  I believe the purpose was to show the
    people just who he was.  Five loaves of bread and two fish go a long
    way after all!!!
    
    -Jack

    .26
    
    > I believe the purpose was to show the
    > people just who he was.
    
    And he did it again with the 4000.  Which means that some significant
    number of people witnessed a miracle - except that producing stuff out
    of nowhere was a common conjurors' trick.  It still is, as a matter of
    fact.  Given that he had a dozen stooges in the audience to hide stuff
    under their robes, a performance like that would be pointless; people
    could, and would, dismiss it as they dismissed the similar tricks of
    many others.
    
    His mission was to bring love into the world, not get a contract as a
    Doug Henning lookalike.  Changing people's hearts, now THAT is a true
    miracle - and one that lasts.

    And of course a few hours leter when he walked on water, he had Peter
    walk on water too but that was a conspiracy between the two of them.
    They were really walking on submerged lilly pads with alot of padding.
    
    As far as true miracles, the conversion of hearts is the greatest
    miracle.  What would be the point of walking on water, etc. otherwise!
    
    -Jack

    |They were really walking on submerged lilly pads with alot of padding.
    
    jack, sometimes you are too funny.

    RE: .17

>    I have to 
>    pay tax on my house, and I they don't have to pay tax on their houses 
>    because of separation of church and state.  Those are the rules. 
    
    Property taxes are either local or state.  Even if you taxed the
    churches' property you wouldn't do anything for the national deficit.

    -- Dave

    .28
    
    > when he walked on water
    
    That was not a display for the hoi polloi, that was for the disciples
    only.  The disciples already knew who he was.  Once you recognize that
    God is God, there's no need for him to try to convince you further.

    ^And of course a few hours leter when he walked on water
    
    Some people will believe anything!

    
    That's right and consider me one of the lowly saps! 

The meaning behind the walking on water episode has nothing to do with Jesus
walking on water, and everything to do with Peter sinking when he took his
eyes off the Lord.

/john

While we're on the subject, here's a little ditty I've always enjoyed -

Jesus I am overjoyed to meet you face to face.
You've been getting quite a name all around the place.
Healing cripples, raising from the dead
And now I understand you're God at least
 that's what you've said.

So you are the Christ you're the great Jesus Christ.
Prove to me that you're divine-change my water into wine
That's all you need do and I'll know it's all true.
C'mon King of the Jews.

Jesus you just won't believe the hit you've made round here.
You are all we talk about the wonder of the year.
Oh what a pity if it's all a lie
Still I'm sure that you can rock the cynics if you try.

So you are the Christ you're the great Jesus Christ.
Prove to me that you're no fool walk across
 my swimming pool.
If you do that for me then I'll let you go free.
C'mon King of the Jews.

I only ask things I'd ask any superstar.
What is it that you have got that puts you where you are?
I am waiting yes I'm a captive fan,
I am dying to be shown that you are not just any man.

So if you are the Christ yes the great Jesus Christ
Feed my household with this bread-
 you can do it on your head
Or has something gone wrong? Why do you take so long?
C'mon King of the Jews.

Hey! Aren't you scared of me Christ? Mr. Wonderful Christ!
You're a joke you're not the Lord-
 you are nothing but a fraud.
Take him away-he's got nothing to say!
Get out you King of the Jews! Get out of my life!

	-Herod's Song
	  Lyrics by Tim Rice
	  from The Rock Opera- Jesus Christ Superstar

    .31> That was not a display for the hoi polloi,
    
    Now *really* Herr BinderSan, you know as well as I do, no prolly
    better, that the "hoi" woid already denotes the nominative plural.
    
    Wouldja like some au jus wiv that crow, or wot.  :-) :-)
    
    |-{:-)
    

    by taking his eyes off, he missed the rocks, obviously.
    
    

    .32
    
    <<>>And of course a few hours leter when he walked on water<<>>
    
    >>Some people will believe anything!<<
    
    Why not, it's believable :^)  We're walking on water right now in New
    England, and about to walk on another foot of the stuff on Wednesday.

    .36
    
    > -< You misuse "hoi polloi" -- WHY do you misuse "hoi polloi??" >-
    
    Prolly because, unlike you, I make no claim to omniscience.  French,
    Latin, and English are enough for me.  Si quaestiones de Graeca habes,
    easdem ad Aristotelem alloqui te opus est.

    Jesus Christ, will all you "water walkers" get back to the subject of
    the base note!
    

    sad bunch, u unbelievers!
    
    NR
    

    .39
    
    I make no claim to be omniscient in Latin... Not like SOME people... :-)

    
    BEWARE.
    
    The same approaches have been undertaken in the UK, where government
    run and financed social programs have been transferred to charity's.
    The benefits were to be lower overheads, people at ground level getting
    the funding they needed and pointing the services at the *right* areas.
    
    What actually happened is that the funding got less as the government
    began to *enforce* more efficiency on the charity's, the funding being
    reduced annually.
    
    The result is that the government has slowly and cleverly relinquished
    its responsibility for many social commitments, the needy aren't
    getting what is required and its all down to the charity's now, not the
    government. Clever !..... AND if the people don't like it, then they
    should be giving more money to the charity(s) to absolve their
    conscience.
    
    As a last observation, the people who used to deliver the services for 
    the government are now usually the ones persecuting the charities for 
    not delivering the services *their* way, ie regulations etc....
    
    Its a dangerous route......
    
    /David.
    
    

    RE: .43

>    Its a dangerous route......

    And national bankruptcy isn't?

    -- Dave

    
    
    	Nah, socialism works Dave....just take a look around...
    
    

    
    I'm not saying that adhereing to ongoing social programs while a country
    goes bankrupt is a good idea.
    
    What I am saying is that allowing governments (in a democracy), who have
    been elected to manage social funds among other things, and who
    have then covertly relinquished thier responsibilty, at (as usual) the
    cost of the taxpayer, is *not* a good idea. 
    
    Elected governments receive the funding from the tax-payer and should
    re-distribute it thats what they say they will do. Not give the work to
    someone else and then stop paying them.
    
    
    The resulting cost to some people is much much higher, as they still
    continue to pay taxes but are subsidising the social programs via charities 
    according to thier conscience level.
    This is unfair. If you are part of a society which *is* social, then
    the responsibility to contribute should be fairly distributed. Not the
    situation where being helped depends on wether the populace consists of
    kind old grannies or ruthless hard ba****ds.
    
    I'm no socialist, but if I pay money to be spent on "xyz", thats where
    I expect it to go. Not on on some big party for politicians who then
    pay the people who used deliver the service to become the whip-masters
    for organisations who aren't even funded by the government anymore.
    
    Phew.
    
    /David

    .46
    
    I think you miss the point.  The issue isn't that the responsiblity for
    delivering services is turned over to private charities and the
    government keeps the money that they had previously.
    
    The issue is that the government get out of the charity business
    entirely and stop taking the money that they are presently getting. 
    The idea being that the agencies that delivered these services would be
    eliminated and their funding dropped.  This would reduce the tax bills
    of everyone and you could deduct the amount you give to these charities
    from your taxes.
    
    This would allow an individual to support those organizations that they
    believe do the best work and not get penalized for doing so.  Those who
    don't care about supporting these charities do not get the tax
    deduction.
    
    This si an either or proposition.  It does not, and I repeat not, a
    situation where HUD stays in business and is funded by tax dollars and
    all they are is a regulating organization telling private charities how
    to perfrom their work.  HUD goes out of business and gets no funding. 
    This is real reform and reduction of big governement and gets social
    responsibility back to the communities that need the help delivered by
    the people who live in those communities.
    

    This Dai Howell chappie sounds like he might be a commie pinko Welsh git.
    String him up!

    .47
    
    No, I didn't miss the point.
    I agree absolutely with what you say. 
    The concept is fine in my book, I am merely flagging the fact that in
    the UK the same approach has been adopted, although slightly milder,
    but there have been no reduction in my tax contributions OR the 'size' of
    the government departments that used to undertake the work as I understand.
    
    Thus, take heed and don't allow it to happen on your side of the pond.
    
    Here, the government HAS turned the responsibilty for delivering services
    over to private charities AND HAS kept the money that it had
    previously, *my money* - and its still getting it. I have been cheated
    therefore, because they aren't using my money how they said it would
    be, and therefore I don't have it to spend where I like. I could give
    some more away and try to claim it back against tax, but thats not the
    point either.
    
    So again, BE carefull.
    
    /David
    
    >> .47, I'm not a 'welsh' communist pinko thingy whatever socialist, and
    my surname is derived from the Normans (Frenchy France) who managed to 
    invade england about a 1000 years ago. My christian name is a hebrew
    derivitate meaning loved by god or something. So, with a mix like that
    I should qualify for pseudo american status I suppose.......
    
    Nargh..... just joking.