Every time a president, governor etc. attends church, or any other religious function, it comes at a price to the taxpayers, for protection, transportation, etc. Why would there be a double standard for Palin?

The constitution states that the government cannot form and impose a national religion on it's people. Paying for a government offcial attending a religious event is far from imposing a state religion on people. Why is it that all these highly educated people can't understand the constitution?

Setting aside the content of Palin's speech to the young missionaries (which I do have a problem with), I don't see what the issue is with covering the cost of elected officials to attend religious services.

You're kidding, right?

Say I'm the govenor - and I want to go to an athiest convention. Because athietsts are nice people, see. They vote. And I have the taxpayers pick up the tab.

Same standard? Still OK?

Plus, I want to know about this:
Palin also is one of just two governors who channeled federal money to support religious groups through a state agency, Alaska's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Palin has made it a priority to unite faith communities, local nonprofits and government to serve the needy, bringing her high marks — and $500,000 — from the Bush administration.

In fiscal year 2008, Alaska was one of only four states to receive $500,000 in federal grant money
from the national initiative.


Question - is this fiscally conservative? Maybe the answer to that question is, "if it's effective."

Jimmy Carter taught a Sunday School class. He spoke at Southern Baptist Conventions. We have Presidents addressing the National Religious Broadcasters every year. They also address various Jewish groups. And the tab for protection, etc. is picked up by taxpayers. The Clintons even attended different churches sometimes, DOUBLING the cost to the taxpayer (horrors!). Your outrage is disingenuous.

Alaska is REMOTE -- scattered population. Just exactly who do you think is going to SERVE the poor and needy??? That was the point of faith-based initiatives at the Federal as well as the state level. Do you seriously want a Commonwealth agency taking over and taxing you to do what Water Street Rescue Mission does?

No. Wait. What could I possibly be thinking???? That's right, you are the guy who despises Christians and Christianity and have been loudly proclaiming it in the Sunday News for years. Of COURSE you want to abolish all faith-based initiatives completely.

Just curious. How many Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish missionaries do you think are in Alaska seeking to spread their "gospel" through doing good works up there? Seriously, how many? Think Sarah Palin SNUBBED any groups like that to give those horrible Christians preference in HELPING PEOPLE?

You're not answering the question, Angel.

Is what Sarah Palin did fiscally conservative? What evidence do we have that the faith-based programs upon which she showered money were effective?

If there's evidence of their effectiveness, then yes - it's a legitimate expenditure. But if not? And how do you measure effectiveness, anyway?

That's one of the untold stories of our times, the way in which state found a ways to enrich church. It's nothing against Christians per se - though you'll take it that way. It's to say, when there are a societal needs government/the taxpayers need to get the biggest bang for their buck. So perhaps these programs need to be examined for their effectiveness. After all, it's the fiscally conservative thing to do.

You're not answering the question, Angel.

Is what Sarah Palin did fiscally conservative? What evidence do we have that the faith-based programs upon which she showered money were effective?

If there's evidence of their effectiveness, then yes - it's a legitimate expenditure. But if not? And how do you measure effectiveness, anyway?

That's one of the untold stories of our times, the way in which state found a ways to enrich church. It's nothing against Christians per se - though you'll take it that way. It's to say, when there are a societal needs government/the taxpayers need to get the biggest bang for their buck. So perhaps these programs need to be examined for their effectiveness. After all, it's the fiscally conservative thing to do.

Where's the outrage? Paying people to register voters, isn't that illegal?

You're kidding, right?

Say I'm the govenor - and I want to go to an athiest convention. Because athietsts are nice people, see. They vote. And I have the taxpayers pick up the tab.

Same standard? Still OK?

Plus, I want to know about this:
Palin also is one of just two governors who channeled federal money to support religious groups through a state agency, Alaska's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Palin has made it a priority to unite faith communities, local nonprofits and government to serve the needy, bringing her high marks — and $500,000 — from the Bush administration.

In fiscal year 2008, Alaska was one of only four states to receive $500,000 in federal grant money
from the national initiative.


Question - is this fiscally conservative? Maybe the answer to that question is, "if it's effective."

Yes it is, Kate. There was a scandal some years ago when Lancaster County Republicans did that. The party chair was someone named Chet Beiler, and he is now running for state office. Mr. Beiler was aksed to perform community service after those charges were raised, I think "convicted" might be too strong a word.

Do you know anything about that?

Do Democrats and liberals ever simply answer the issue raised? Nope. Side-step. Dodge, bob and weave. "Yeah, but HE did it TOO, mom!" Ridiculous ...

You want to blast local politics and politicians, start your own thread ...

What she didn’t tell worshippers gathered at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown was that her appearance that day came courtesy of Alaskan taxpayers, who picked up the $639.50 tab for her airplane tickets and per diem fees.

Plus, I want to know about this:
Palin also is one of just two governors who channeled federal money to support religious groups through a state agency, Alaska's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Palin has made it a priority to unite faith communities, local nonprofits and government to serve the needy, bringing her high marks — and $500,000 — from the Bush administration.

In fiscal year 2008, Alaska was one of only four states to receive $500,000 in federal grant money
from the national initiative.


Question - is this fiscally conservative? Maybe the answer to that question is, "if it's effective."

Jimmy Carter taught a Sunday School class. He spoke at Southern Baptist Conventions. We have Presidents addressing the National Religious Broadcasters every year. They also address various Jewish groups. And the tab for protection, etc. is picked up by taxpayers. The Clintons even attended different churches sometimes, DOUBLING the cost to the taxpayer (horrors!).

She was the governor for two whole years. Can the effectiveness of a program be determined in that short a time?

Enrich a church??? Seriously, you are a reporter. Send for the annual report of the ministries you question! Perhaps it will open your eyes. The amount that most Christian ministries take in goes right back out the door AND MORE for charitable purposes! You are obviously looking at this through eyes jaded by the abuses of televangelists -- Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar (oy). Totally appropriate to be outraged at their abuses and excesses. But these are NOT the kind of ministries that are "faith-based initiatives".

Fiscal conservativism sometimes has to work with the hand we are dealt. Before you post all your beyond the pale, angry and morally outraged posts, not only on the blog threads but also on the opinion threads, do you even bother to investigate any of your outrageous claims, and if not, why not? If you are starting threads as just a citizen TBer, it sure feels like you are using TB as your own private forum. Your name lends a measure of credence to your statements (not with me, you understand!) as if you'd really investigated this and are speaking with the LNP authority. But on most of your daily, if not multiple times a day, RANTS, it sure seems like you are just venting all your leftwing frustration having been outraged by a visit to the DailyKos. And that is irresponsible even for you.

You didn't answer any questions either. Did Palin snub other religion's organizations who were jockeying for the same funds? Are any of the religions I asked of you about doing any faith-based ministry in Alaska? And, given the population situation in Alaska, if these faith-based initiatives were not doing this work, are there even qualified people or agency to deal with the problems? I DON'T THINK THERE ARE.

We financially support Samaritan's Purse. Google them, if you really want to look at Christian relief with honest eyes. 10% of what they receive goes toward their administrative costs -- a mere 10%. Every single penny of the 90% received goes right out the door to help the poor and needy and suffering. They have done projects in Alaska -- not taken a dime from the state that I know of -- just look at the projects they have done that would NOT have been done by ANYONE if they had not been there to do them. Alaska is NOT NY or CA ... as you point out ad nauseum when you want to slam Palin for lacking credentials. You can't have it both ways.

Anyone vowing to "implement God's will" from the highest office in the state - or land - represents an inherent danger. Just what is God's will, anyway? Who decides?

Sarah Palin, that's who.

"Since she took state office in late 2006, the governor and her family have spent more than $13,000 in taxpayer funds to attend at least 10 religious events and meetings with Christian pastors, including Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical preacher Billy Graham, records show."

Hmm ... didn't Obama say that he would continue with Bush's faith based initiatives? Or did he do a 180 on that too?