George W. Bush Quotes

Getting the government to put money into social programs run by religious institutions is a practice that started during the Clinton years, when Bill Clinton advocated the AmeriCorps program.

Clinton's successor in the White House, George W. Bush, was committed to expanding government spending for faith-based initiatives.

Any religious organization should be allowed to hire based on their religious preference- but not with federal dollars.

Our new faith-based laws have removed government as a roadblock to people of faith who hear the call.

I don't think we should discriminate against an organization or congregation because they're religious, if they're doing good work. But government can't subsidize proselytizing or worship or religious activity. It can't.

From the beginning, there have been some religious leaders who greeted the funding of faith-based social services by government with ambivalence.

What I have said is that I think the federal government and we as a society have come too far in trying to separate good organizations that perform good functions for people just based on the fact one has a religious association and one doesn't.

No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution

Through my Faith-Based and Community Initiative, my Administration continues to encourage the essential work of faith-based and community organizations. Governments can and should support effective social services, including those provided by religious people and organizations. When government gives that support, it is important that faith-based institutions not be forced to change their religious character.

I believe it is in the national interest that government stand side-by-side with people of faith who work to change lives for the better. I understand in the past, some in government have said government cannot stand side-by-side with people of faith. Let me put it more bluntly, government can't spend money on religious programs simply because there's a rabbi on the board, cross on the wall, or a crescent on the door. I viewed this as not only bad social policy - because policy by-passed the great works of compassion and healing that take place - I viewed it as discrimination.

But separation of church and state was never meant to separate God and government.

European museums are all dependent on government financing. The moment European governments are under financial pressure, their budgets are cut.

Everyone town of 100,000 in the United States should have a Classical Theater supported by the town, or the state of the county, or the Federal Government, as they have in every civilized country.

For many years, the government of Canada has massively supported orchestras and the arts in general.

Christianity is permitted under China's constitution, and the government has long supported a network of official Christian churches.

I don't think religious groups should be allowed to apply for federal funds to start new ministries they have not been doing before the funding was available.

A boatload of government money is indeed a gift. Unless, I suppose, you're one of the saps paying for the cargo.

I'm not a big fan of a lot of government dollars going into research and development for private enterprises... and you're not going to see the House of Representatives, I'm certain, provide a lot of money for research and development for electric vehicles.

Every time the U.S. government makes a low-cost loan to someone, it's investing in them.

In a secular, pluralistic democracy these issues of life and death involve questions about the right of individual Americans to decide and the obligation of the federal government to finance their decisions.

Catholic Charities is already one of the largest government contractors in the United States.

No money of the state shall ever be given or appropriated to any sectarian or religious society or institution.

We want no new types of public appropriations for sectarian purposes

There is no neutral aid when that aid principally flows to religious institutions nor is there truly “private choice” when the available choices resulting from the program are predominantly religious.

A government may only govern so long as the people, through their representatives, vote it the money to carry on.