E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, June 8, 2015

Faith-based charities: See? I told you so!

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

I really wish conservatives would understand why getting entangled with government is bad. Now that President Obama is proposing that faith-based charities that get grants from the government be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, I want to point out that I warned about this back in 2001. With government money comes government strings. (Thanks Monica Boyer for the tip.)

See? I told you so!

Yes, I am gloating about being right. Republican after Republican told me I was being an alarmist, but the test of time has proven I was right all along. But it is much more important that conservatives understand that we cannot trust the government to simply give you "free stuff" without expecting anything in return.

This conflict is exactly why government needs to be smaller and less powerful. It is inevitable that things like the faith-based charities program will be abused, like a drug dealer expecting more from the people hooked on his product. Once you get faith-based charities addicted to the narcotic of federal money, you can use that as leverage to force them to compromise their beliefs. Every single time you create a government program - like the "faith based charities foolishness" - you can count on it being abused.

And here is the frustrating thing about this controversy. I am not a prophet. I am not a genius who sees things people of lesser intellect cannot. The only thing I used to predict this is an understanding of human motivations, a knowledge of history and current events, and an understanding of human motivations. This requirement was easy to predict and everyone - including the Bush Administration - should have seen this coming.

This does not mean I believe all government is bad. I am not an anarchist. We see in Romans 13 that government was given to us by God for our benefit. It is righteous and good when government punishes the wicked and protects the innocent. But because human beings are sinners, government needs to be strictly limited. When you extend government's reach beyond its core duties, you have to know that sinful men will - not may, will - abuse that power. When you take the government's money, you accept the government's strings, and you better believe those strings will pull you in a direction you will not like.

By the way, this is exactly why vouchers for private schools are a terrible idea and a threat to liberty.

(1 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

At June 8, 2015 at 11:45 AM , Blogger TableTopJoe said...  

Mr. Tibbs,

It is a rare occasion that I get to agree with you in such a full-throated manner as I do today.

Personally, I have no problem with government attempting to use funding to entice people to do things they would not otherwise do, so long as those things are proper for a government to do. As an example, I would have a big problem with government enticements that forbid an organization from, for example, hiring any member of an interracial marriage. Conversely, I fully support government using its grants and funding to ensure that those who are funded by the public don't use that funding to discriminate based on race.

With respect to the LGBT issue, we can agree to disagree whether forcing organizations that accept federal dollars to refrain from discriminating based on sexual preference is an abuse of government power.

However, I believe that you and I are in full agreement that when you accept money from someone, whether that someone is your father, your boss, or your government, there will generally be strings tied thereto. You are absolutely correct that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." This is one of the reasons why I, like you, believe that vouchers for private schools are a terrible idea. How long before those vouchers come with strings mandating, for example, the teaching of evolution or the exclusion of biblical teaching?

I believe in the separation of church and state for two chief reasons:
1. I don't want the government telling my church what to do.
2. I don't want someone else's church telling my government what to do.

I am pretty sure that you, a principled conservative, can find common ground with me, an unabashed progressive, on this.

Have a nice day, sir.


Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.