Faith Biased?

"I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Jesus, this belongs right next to school uniforms and the V-Chip.

First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion.

Good luck enforcing that.

And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

Good luck with that, too.

"federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. "
I hope that all faiths are recognized - including those of the native North Americans, South Americans and Africans.

This also means that their non-secular activities get a boosts from the funds now released from their secular programs that benefit the tax dollars paid by ALL Americans.
What do the witches and atheists without a temple or mosque or church get from Uncle Sam of all Americans?
Discrimination?
Profiled-to-be-neglected status?

Bad idea really.

We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. People bring their belief system to make important decisions. There have been religious wars and murderous actions by secular states like (Hitler and Communist states).

Both the Christian evangelical Rev Haggee and the atheist Christopher Hitchens support the War in Iraq. A religious bigot justifies his actions because it brings on the Rapture. The atheist can justify killing "delusional" believers. I find no comfort in depending on either side to protect my rights.

Should I trust secular organizations obtaining government funds not to steal money? No. should I trust religious groups not to promote their religion? No. Both groups will require monitoring.

Church groups did yeoman work as did secular people like Hollywood actors like Sean Penn during Katrina when our government failed.
We can accomplish great things together

We have gone through a long dark period were political oppurtunists some with religious degrees others with doctorates in child psychology told us what we had to think to be Christian. On the other side we had strong believers suppressing any public display of religion. Perhaps now the tolerant people of faith, agostics, and atheist can try to calm the waters.

Haggee is an idiot. Hitchens is an idiot. They should no longer be the ones setting the tone for discussion about religion in the United States. People with and without religious belief can provide aid to those in need.

Senator, I represent the Human Fund, the charitable branch of the Speculum of the Mighty Aluminum Pole. We Speculants believe in the Great Pole, the avatar of the One Almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster. We celebrate only one Holy Day, Festivus, on December 23rd, which was of course the day 23 years ago when the Almighty FSM shaped itself into the form of a rigid aluminum tube and came unto Mankind to redeem us of our dietary excesses through the practice of a variety of Feats of Strength. I--er, we--seek copious amounts of federal funding in order to continue our good works in the community, such as keeping downtrodden HDTV manufacturers in business through the purchase of ever larger and fancier HDTVs. Our Holy Pasta Father commands us thusly. I will provide you with my--I mean, our--mailing address upon your election as President, and I--we--will expect the first of many checks to arrive shortly afterwards.

If administered properly this can work and is actually a common way that the (say isn't so!) French government delivers services to communities.

Senator, I represent the Child Care Alliance Internatonal Guild. Our motto is that we love children, the younger the better. We provide round-the-clock care for children at our members homes. We also do home schooling to keep outside influences from corrupting our educational program. We have a record of buying, I mean bringing foster children to the United Staes from third world countries. The children get to pleasure us, I mean experience the pleasures of life in the United States. We are in no way affliated with any religion. We await your check.

"Good luck enforcing that."

As chokora points out, the problem isn't enforcing anti-discrimination rules wrt employment. The problem is that every dollar given to Catholic Charities (for example) to support the "secular" part of its mission is a dollar that the Catholic Church can use for religious purposes. On the other hand, the alternative - denying funding to any religious group that discriminates in employment for religious reasons in any way (like, say, the Catholic Church as opposed to, say, the Unitarians) may not be very palatable either, for a variety of reasons.

I meant to put quotes around "discriminates in employment." Obviously, Catholics might object to the description of male only priesthood as "employment discrimination." But the larger issue is practical. If you take out just the churches that have male only clergy, that's a huge portion of the existing organizations able to fill this role. Then you have to decide what to do about sexual orientation discrimination.

I love faith-based organizations. As you might suspect from my nom-de-blog, I belong to one.

The last thing (if you'll pardon my expressing it this way) on God's green Earth we want or need is the government's idiotic notion of "assistance" with our affairs. We have enough problems as it is. "Help" from a bunch of amoral sh*tkickers who don't know shibboleth from Shrove Tuesday is not, I promise you, going to be good for ANYBODY - except the equally amoral sh*tkickers FastEddie portrayed in his excellent post above.

Money is nice, but you know what? We can get the money we need if we beg long and loud enough for it. The thing that really makes a difference in the end is personal involvement on a continuing basis, even when it's not particularly convenient - a little concept we like to call "discipleship."

Well, looks like rmrd0000 has proved that the government should stop subsidising all nonprofits, cause some might be pedoes.

pme - I believe the point is to prohibit discrimination in the employment of any people hired to administer and provide these services. It's well established legally that Churches may engage in hiring practices that would be discriminatory outside of the Church. It's also quite clear that virtually every faith organization would be caught out in this - not just Catholics for not having female priests.

KathyR

Catholic organizations will opt out once the government tells them that the Catholic Church has to provide abortion services as part of the health plan for any employees covered under a US government sanctioned program.

I thought I was being clear in not singling out Catholics. My point is that the line you are drawing conveniently ignores the fact that funding a "secular program" of a religious organization is, at least to some extent, a subsidy of the religious "program." Sure, there are putatively independent boards of directors and budgets, but you do see that paying a church to do one thing frees up money for it to do other things?

Catholic Charities was a convenient example because (a) they're huge and (b) gender discrimination is a clear violation of federal law, whereas gender orientation discrimination is more complicated.

I wish the government would just stay out of this whole business. Let churches and other religious organizations do their thing. Let government do its thing.

I've got an idea. Let we, the people, decide who to give to instead of filtering our money through bureaucratic hands that chew up most of it in inefficiences. If I want to give to Catholic Charities, great! If I prefer the Red Cross, great! I don't pay taxes to have the money end up in my church or yours. I pay taxes to pay for the common defense, diplomacy, protection from criminals, etc.

Luke 20:25.

Obama's always shared the Amy Sullivan worldview that suggests that liberals do themselves a disservice when they downplay the role of faith in politics. The trouble, as the Flying Spaghetti Monster post above makes clear, once you've decided to mix religion and government, you've crossed a line that has to date protected us from sheer stupidity but will no longer be able to do so.

Obama is right to take this approach and it is absolutely consistent with his previous positions.

Whilst a very puritan separation of church and state has it's benefit's extending it to deny funding to faith based charities is just silly and self defeating.

We have similar things to what Obama proposes here in Australia and its works well. The Salvation Army for instance, has a big contract in providing services to the unemployed. So far they shown no tendency to exert undue influence on policy.

This is so sad. Why is this important? Because the worst, most corrupt, evil administration in our country's history was largely elected by religious fanatics.

Bush began his "faith based" programs in the Texas prison system, where a former Houston DA established a program based on one in Brazil. Brazil for gods sake!!! And the claim was that recividism rates were just miraculous in Brazil for such programs. Of course, it was all nonsense. But Little Bush carried such programs to Washington.

Most of these programs don't deliver anything. The abstinence only sex education programs delivered in public schools are all sponsered by faith based organizations. You know that it is a complete failure, don't you?

One of the faith based organizations that does do good is the Salvation Army. They don't get much fed tax payer money.

This is all so bogus. While I am disappointed in Obama paying so much attention to religion, I do understand why it is necessary.

I mentioned the Salvation Army and the good they do. Let me add that the reason they don't get federal handouts is because they stay out of politics. Which is as it should be.

If a group is providing outreach and helping the community it shouldn't matter whether they are faith based or secular. If the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants to set up a non profit that passes muster with the IRS and they are truly providing quality services they should be eligible too. The key should be do the programs work, not whether they are secular or religious.

I agree with bitterroot. We're not talking about just handing money to religious groups - we're talking about providing funding for services delivered in accordance with federal guidelines. Those groups who choose to deliver their services otherwise will not receive funding.

We fund all sorts of programs and groups with our tax dollars. The point is, religious groups providing legitimate services ought not be discriminated against in the funding process simply because they are religious groups. When we fund arts programs federally, that frees up money for organizations or museums so funded to use for other purposes; when we fund medical research federally, THAT frees up funding for organizations to use for other purposes - so that argument doesn't mean much to me unless we're willing to withhold ALL federal funding to organizations which might use the dollars then freed-up for purposes with which some of us may not agree.

pme
"..but you do see that paying a church to do one thing frees up money for it to do other things? ..
Quite true. We may generalize this as:
paying a church or state to do one thing frees up money for it to do other things?
Like saber rattling, warring and acquiring prosperity that in turn gives the recipient the chutzpa to give the donor the finger?
Yes, thinking of the $1500 per capita USA's taxpayer sends to Israel.
--
Robert Beswick:
" Obama is right to take this approach .. We have similar things to what Obama proposes here in Australia and its works well. ... So far they shown no tendency to exert undue influence on policy."
It seems to work in THAT setting.
Maybe Australian pastors are not activists like our Hagees, Parsleys, Falwells, Grahams ...the Evangelicals and Catholics and Judaists and Voodooists -- does that cover the major culprits?

"We're not talking about just handing money to religious groups - we're talking about providing funding for services delivered in accordance with federal guidelines. Those groups who choose to deliver their services otherwise will not receive funding." - demwoman

demwoman, have you followed over the past few years how this administration has criminally mishandled public funds handed out to private vendors such as Halliburton and subsidaries and Blackwater (run by a religious fanatic)? I mean no offense, but your statement is laughable.

You also mention medical research. Stem cell research offers the greatest promise at present. The administration has for several years refused to fund it. The decision is based on religious, not secular belief.

I would also say "amen" to chokora's comment that you and bitteroot might not be familiar with the destructive element of fundamentalist religion in the US. Why it exists, I don't know, but in the christian world, it is most pervasive in the US, and nowhere else that I am aware of.

Before you all keep stroking your chins till the skin wears off, you should take a look at the "Faith In Action" program that has been funded for many years by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It provides small grants to over 1000 interfaith organizations (that's the key, more than one faith) around the country. It organizes volunteers to become part-time caregivers to the elderly. The program doesn't try to change the world. It only tries to change the lives of a few thousand lonely elderly citizens.
A new book, "Promise To Mary" by Paul Jellinek, is an account of wht this faith based program has done during its twenty year existence. No politics, no proselytizing -- just helping members of your community. Back when I worked for the War On Poverty we called that community action.

gurumanjohn, and this post applies to federal funding of religion, how?

I have no problem with such foundation funding on their own. My problem is with tax payer funding.

James -

I don't know how to get through to help you understand that we are not talking about federal funding of RELIGION, as you stated above. We are talking, as I mentioned before, about federal funding of SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS provided by religious groups IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL GUIDELINES. There is a big difference.

And to make the argument that because this administration and some radical religionists have perverted some of the basic tenets of faith and separation of church and state we should not ever fund ANY services provided by ANY religious group, THAT is what is laughable! And, as you mention above, it was the administration that mishandled the public funds, not any particular religious group.

Is it the fault of Catholic Charities that the Bush Administration provided funds to Blackwater? And, what exactly were the domestic social service programs Blackwater was administering? Food banks? Family counseling? Low-income housing? Job training? Child care? Please - I would really like to know what I'm missing in the great Blackwater spectrum of service here, and how that has anything at all to do with what we're discussing?

RE: james on the relevance of Faith in Action, a foundation-funded interfaith volunteer program that helps the homebound elderly and disabled and does not allow proselytizing or hiring discrimination (see gurumanjohn). Although the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation provided 18-month start-up funds for these programs, all of the more than 650 Faith in Action programs now operating across the country are doing so without any RWJF money. Their continuing funding comes from a variety of local sources, such as United Way, local hospitals, and the participating congregations themselves. A fair number of them also get some of their ongoing funding from their state and local governments--and so far (ie., since 1983, when the first 25 pilot programs started), it hasn't been a problem anywhere.

James - In case you haven't noticed, private foundations are essentially making grants with YOUR money. They are tax exempt and the money they give has escaped being put into the Federal government's tax pool.

Governments shouldn't fund religion. But organizations that bring people together because they believe in some kind of faith shouldn't be excluded from providing community-wide services, as long as they play by the rules. Without the whole non-profit sector, of which faith affiliated organizations are a major part, your life (yes, I mean yours specifically, as well as everyone else's) would be much poorer.

I appreciate all of the attention. In summary, I am opposed to all federal public funding of any religious organization for any reason.

Any social need should be fulfilled by a secular government organization. That is the role of government.

demowoman, I am encouraged that you show some understanding, at least, of the need for separation of church and state. As for this administration, contrary to your separation of it from religious organizations, one of my major complaints is that the administration IS more of a religous organization than one of secular government. The president panders to extreme right wing religionists at the expense of his role as leader of all citizens, religionists and secularists. As for Blackwater, it obviously has nothing to do with Catholic Charaties, and I fail to see your point. My point is that Blackwater received their no bid contract because of the religious posture of the founder.

pablo, I honestly don't know anything about Faith in Action, but if affiliates receive local government funding, that is a larger issue that I wasn't addressing.

guruman, yes, I know that religious groups already receive funding through tax exemption, but again, that is beyond what I am addressing here. And the Congress is starting to investigate abuse in that area now as we speak.

My concern here, now, is direct federal funding of religion or religious programs. I am absolutely opposed. I respect your opinions, you are after all in the majority in the US.

Thanks for a good debate James. It seems that we all at least agree that the Bush Administration has seriously warped the traditional relationship between church, state and social engagement. We also seem to agree that government has a legitimate role in providing social services. In that, we differentiate ourselves from the other 49% of the country.

Best wishes to all who weighed in.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD , so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار