africanhope

This could also be under religion, but I think it suits more here.

I am busy with my PhD, and want your help (no no no, it is not cheating)

I am now busy, as part of this thesis, to look at the role religious institutions can, play in social work and social problems in SA, should play according to their own beliefs, and should be allowed to play. I would love your thoughts.

I mean, as some examples, should they receive public funding from government to do social development. If yes, should their be guidelines (can they use it to build churches etc.). Can they spread thegospel, or whatever is suited in their religion, while helping people, things like this.

I am not expressing myself clearly, I know, but we are suffering undr our 8th heatwave of the summer, and it is a rough one, so my brown is refusing to work


AH

PS. o yeah, thank you

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Otter

I think it is a somewaht tricky situation for both government and religion if the former gives the latter funds for public assistance (this is what you are referring to, right?). A church receiving public funds is then bound by the same anti-discrimination rules that the government is (after all, this is everyone's money they are using). Curches tend to not like this, and see it as government interference with their religious practice. Which it is, but then, so is the money.

__________________
And I shall go as an Otter lank
and harry thee close from bank to bank
And I shall go in the Lady's name
all to bring thee home again

GreatScott

I do not believe that churches should receive any government money for social development. It sounds good but I doubt guidelines would be followed. Like anything people would find ways around the system. Successful churches, who could do the most good, are fundraising machines that should raise all of their money and therefore be able to help people through their own belief system.

Troianii

I think I know what you're asking for, but if not then you'll know.

The U.S. shouldn't give much money to charities because that only wastes money. If the American people want to give X amount of money to charity then having that money run through the government's hands would only waste millions of dollars in administrative costs.

The U.S. government shouldn't give much help to charities, and what help it does give shouldn't be based on being politically correct but doing the most good. In example, I know of a charity that I've given to and intend to give more to. Worldvision is a great charity. It doesn't discriminate on basis of race, creed, sex or religion, 87% of donations it receives gets to the poor (13% in administrative costs and fund raising). They are a highly efficient and truly caring charity, coming highly reccommended by many people, Alex Trebek to name one of them, but they are often looked down upon because they are a Christian charity.

So, IMO, the U.S. government shouldn't give any money to charities, but the government shouldn't let charities operate as they do. In the case that the U.S. government does fund charities it should only choose who it funds based on efficiency and how much of the money goes to the actual effort (although efficiency is why the government shouldn't be involved).