1. Because there is no way a private church has enough money to provide thousands and thousands of people the things they need, when they are IN need.

2. OK, well so who decides whether or not their parental rights are terminated? And also, who decides the gaurdians IMMIEADIATLEY after these rights have been terminiated?

1. You probably don't know a lot about churches and their funding. Let me assure you, churches have HUGE funds, and are quite capable of helping the really needy.

2. If a person breaks the law by abusing their kids, they lose parental rights. The government is an immediate guardian.

1. Actually a private church does have the money. The Vatican is the richest non-profit in the world, a close second, I belive, is Harvard University. The more important question is if they want. Not everyone is Mother Theresa or Padre Pio you know. I think depending on pure charity, which has just as many strings attached as government funding, is playing it wrong. At least government funding is open to discussion through such things as elections and negotiations. Private charity does what the hell it wants whenever it wants, and that's even less of a way of running certain social programs than the government's mishandling of them.

2. And what I think I get from this is that a parent designates the child's future gaurdian, but if the parent is abusive, (s)he loses that right. In which case, it is the government's responsibilty and that money has to come from somewhere. I don't think going next of kin is really a productive route, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting krem.

-Dolce

dolce, my mom works in a fairly large presbyterian church, and they spend money like crazy on various community programs, etc. I don't believe the government should be involved in the process at all; it's highly inefficient and it doesn't know anything about communities. Look at the sorry state Welfare is in. Not to mention that it's morally wrong (at least in my view) to take people's money to redistribute it to other people.

This thread got derailed into god knows where. Rand was a goofball.

Lets talk about Mr "Torture Memo" Gonzales. Is the man who legally approved the move towards torture a good choice as defender of our freedoms at home?

Of course it doesn't matter what we think, it's all the one-party state's choice, but lets pretend we have a say. Is he a good choice?

Personally I have a non-ideological reason why I think he was chosen. He's someone Bush is comfortable with who he can appoint who doesn't plan to run for President in 2008. If Bush had appointed someone like Guiliani, he might have angered Jeb or McCain.

I don't know anything about Gonzalez. He wrote a legal opinion, something any lawyer would've done; I doubt he deserves to be put on the cross for that. They're saying he's more moderate than Aschcroft; let's wait and see.

SO you think its morally wrong to help people who are disadvanteged? thats a little harsh dont you think

Also, If your saying that the child is in the protection of the Government, and it is their responsiblity to find a placement, that sorta goes against your whole view of governmen not being involved in the adoption process.

I seriously dont understand your stance, that it is morally wrong for you to help other people. Is it really that bad if someone is making 500,000 a year, that some of their taxes go to those who cant even afford to feed their fuckin kids?

OH wait now, I hadn't even considered putting a Bush administration member on the cross. Now that would be poetic justice. But better for Rumsfeld, not poor Gonzalez.

And here I was just slightly disappointed than a mild-mannered toady was getting the job instead of an independent thinker. But at least it's not Zell Miller, have to give credit where it's due.

SOrry for getting off topic about your thread Archie

It's just a very interesting topic...show krem, dolce and I move it?


p.s. Where did you get your kick ass avatar?

I never said that. You're twistsing my words, yet again.

The current adoption process is very complicated, it is drawn out and costs a lot of money to boht the government and the peopel who want to adopt.

I didn't say it's morally wrong to help people. I said it's morally wrong for the government to forcefully make people help other people.

SOrry, I didnt mean to twist your words DOnt be mad!!!


Please explain your last statment a little better, So i can understand whar your really trying to say

Hey, if we HAVE to crucify someone, can we do it to the person who pushed for steel tariffs and other such nonsense?

It's not my thread. Talk about whatever you want, I just felt like talking about the A.G. job for a second and had to butt in.

As to my avatar, I got the image from this site which sells t-shirts with that image: http://wigu.com/shop/eagle.html

If you see a rich person on the street, would you consider taking $20 out of their pocket, without their consent, to help a needy person down the street?

Thats taking an example to the extreme dont you think Krem?
Look at it this way. If you had a child, who was dying, starving...whatever, and you needed $20 and you could save it, would you steal from a pharmacy? Or steal from someone?

No. I would take the child to the hospital, have them do whatever they need, and THEN i'd worry about the money.

And I'm not taking anything to the extreme. The government using tax money to help some people is an exact equivalent of you coming up to me and grabbing the twenty. Only the government takes more.

I never said large branch churches didn't have enough money. But what makes you think the Vatican has any better of an idea how to disburse money for use, lets say, in the Taylor homes in Chicago than the Government over here does. It would equally as beurocratic and mishandled, with the fact that the Vatican might even have less investment in it than City of Chicago government officials. And it still doesn't answer my point. What if they don't feel like doing it? Then kid 1 that gets turned over to the government, as you yourself said happens after an abuse case, still needs funding and support. That money is going to have to come from somewhere.



Not so fast. The adoption process is that detailed because parents are worried they're getting a crack-baby, or worse, a Jewish one. You can't even tell those apart from the others until they grow up and turn out nuerotic and kvetching about politics. If the process wasn't so regulated, no parent would even bother adopting. Too much paranoia. Admit it, there's faith in the complexity of it, even if its not justified.



Okay, so i'm slowly changing my mind about some government regulations, but one thing I'm still pretty sure of is assistance to poorer individuals. Let the business go a bit looser, fine, but I do think everyone has a responcibility to see the community grow together. You are argueing that all programs should be optional and depend on the gratiousness of kind strangers, well I don't think that's going to happen. As I mentioned earlier, better that money go to a place where with enough voting and enough negotiations it can be alered, than to just hold your breath every evening and see if Donald Trump decides he's rather put some cash down for helping children of the state find homes than beauty princesses of America starve themselves for a diamond tiara.
-Dolce

For Archie...digging up some info, but I have to say I know little about him right now.



Um, there's another article on a prisoner voicing his objections that I haven't read yet, and I don't know enough about this to make a decision right now. I know that those recommendations can be taken out of context, especially by papers, so I'm going to dig up more info, and welcome any that you guys have.

-Dolce

Dolce, I'm not sure about Catholic Church, but I know the church my mom works at distributes the money itself, without bureaucracy. And I honestly can't think of the reasons why a church, or a charity would purposefuly refuse the money to the truly needy. And even if they do, that still shouldn't mean the government should assume that role.

As for that one kid, well I do believe that we, the people, have a responsibility to provide for minors who cannot be provided for by their parents.

For a bonus: here's the list of top 25 charities in the U.S.



I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Seriously, though, I believe if we opened up the adoption process to free market, we'd have reduced the number of abortions by a large degree.

But you're still arguing that people should be forced to give money to the needy. I don't believe in that whatsoever.

I get the feeling that people think that helping people is somehow bad, or that poor people should "fend for themselves"

Lovemerox, the majority of people do not consider helping the poor to be "bad". What people have a problem with is the vehicle that is being used to "help" poor people. Some people consider it immoral for government to use its coercive power to rob Peter to pay Paul.

SO how were you "robbed"?

Okay, I get it, charity. I don't disagree with you. I also think insitutions. usually religious but sometimes community, tend to be more invested and know more of the problems in the areas they are located. They deal with their constituencies daily, and about a large percentage of the time keep them in mind. I have always thought that these institutions were main stays of their communities, but have also been upset by the idea the government could play preferential treatment to some other the others (read: Faith Based Initiative). Do I think there are still holes? Yes. And I also am, believe it or not, fairly distrustful of some of the ideas that can be propagated through depending on religious institutions to do the right thing (Let me take that back, the relgious institutions that have money, do the right thing). Look we all know the Pope could have said something a bit differently in the late 30's or early 40's and things might have gone a bit differently.




I am being serious...sort of. I don;t think you can sell babies the way you do the latest diet pill. We may love the power of the consumer and the free business model in this country, but we do take it with a healthy grain of distrust. I do think that privitizing baby adoption is not going to make it any smoother. There will be a back-up of court cases and who knows what else.

I don't like your sly little remarks about reducing abortion rates by deregulating adoption.

I'd prefer if we were going to talk about really making abortion a non-issue that we should take about making over-the-counter morning after pills available, teaching children from very early on about their bodies, and telling guys to take some responsibility for putting a condom on.

If we want to talk deregulation of adoption, then lets stick to topics pertaining to adoption please.

And yeah the crack and Jewish baby joke is only half in jest.



To a point, because chances are they made that money off the needy too. And honestly, I'm going to take the moral high road schtick out of this and say I don't think people are being "forced" to give money to the needy. I think the government, if it was run by better people, would be investing some of you money into particular spaces that then produce an even wealthier return. "Taking" our money to invest in new technologies and infrastructure actually makes up more appealing to foreign investment, professional, investment, etc. Then, the country prospers and you actually get the money back. The government cleaning ip those "dark spots" isn;t doing so because they necessarily have some concept of social morality, they're doing it to make places attractive and stable to live and invest in.

-Dolce

My money was taken in the form of taxes to pay for your precious social programs.

My precious social programs? Which programs? You know, since their mine of course.
So is it ok, to take money to go fight in a war?