For me the concern is that it becomes a patronage slush fund that simultaneously permits the government abdicating its responsibility to the poor, tired, huddled masses without necessarily giving them a better lot in their every yearning quest to breathe free. It could be an incredibly efficient means to spend federal monies to ensure that redundancies occur less often and so more people get more help. It could also be a bunch of sweetheart deals wrapped up in the sacred cow of helping the less fortunate.
That sounds more like a critique of government-funded charity in general.
Gotta say, to a much less militant degree, I agree with Qingu on this one. I suspect anyone who's ever spent much time hanging around within a church group/other religious organization for a religion they're not part of can tell you that there's some degree of a 'join our church, come on' vibe that's somewhat endemic to what I guess I'll have to call the 'culture' of the group, even when they're not actively giving you food or rebuilding your house or whatever.
I'm not as outright opposed to all religion everywhere as he is, but giving government money to a group that will more or less by nature exert at least a subtle influence on the faith of those around them seems a little iffy.
You guys must have some really shitty religious charities around you. Well, that, or Catholic Charities is just that much more awesome and my grandpa's soup kitchen is full of people capable of doing the impossible...and me.
Gotta say, to a much less militant degree, I agree with Qingu on this one. I suspect anyone who's ever spent much time hanging around within a church group/other religious organization for a religion they're not part of can tell you that there's some degree of a 'join our church, come on' vibe that's somewhat endemic to what I guess I'll have to call the 'culture' of the group, even when they're not actively giving you food or rebuilding your house or whatever.
I'm not as outright opposed to all religion everywhere as he is, but giving government money to a group that will more or less by nature exert at least a subtle influence on the faith of those around them seems a little iffy.
You might want to spend some time with their actual charity programs. I've got family who works for a Catholic charity and I am absolutely certain that she would advocate abortion to the young woman she works with if it were a possibility. Now most of her job comes into the picture much later than that but her hands aren't tied with regards to it. I also really do not see her pressing anybody to go to Mass since I don't think she's ever been herself.
There will always be a strong, subtle layer of emotional manipulation in religious charities. I do not want my money going towards that under any circumstance.
Not so much, actually. Some religious charities - hell, even some church sermons - don't come off as overly religious. Meanwhile, you can find people willing to preach to you while serving you a fucking burger at Mickey-Ds.
Are you more likely to see proselytizing at a religious charity than a non-religious one? Sure. Hence the oversight. Now, if you're of the opinion that it's an atrocity if some homeless guy hears the word "God" while getting his soup, then you're probably not going to care for this plan. Also, you have an unhealthy obsession with religion-hating and might want to get that checked out.
I think you have a naive view of the interaction between charity and proselytizing. Islamic fundamentalists, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, often operate charities—it broadens support for their cause, and whether or not this is their explicit intent of a byproduct of their religiosity, that's the effect. Saudi Arabia pumps billions of dollars of the money we pay them into funding Salafi (aka Wahabbi) schools and charities across the world. This is how they spread their cult; this is why there are so many people suddenly wearing burqas and beards in places like Somalia and Kenya.
This is also why evangelical mega-churches increasingly have day-care centers and shit—it allows them to perform an ostensibly secular economic service (like charity) within the context of their cult.
Now, yes, I know that American Christianity is not as hard-core as Salafi Islam. But my point is that religious charities cannot be neatly separated from religion. For religious groups, charity is a strategy of solidifying and expanding their cult. You can argue that individuals in religious groups do not see their charity as being part of a strategy, and I'd agree, but on a systemic level that is exactly what happens. I realize I am rabidly anti-religion, but I think there are good reasons for my attitude, and for not wanting to give religious people a platform with secular government money.
This is also why evangelical mega-churches increasingly have day-care centers and shit—it allows them to perform an ostensibly secular economic service (like charity) within the context of their cult.
Dude, step back. The religious are people just like you are and most churches run daycare because they have a huge fucking building that gets used a couple times a week. That it can be used to the benefit of their members is only tangentially related to religion if at all.
This is also why evangelical mega-churches increasingly have day-care centers and shit—it allows them to perform an ostensibly secular economic service (like charity) within the context of their cult.
Dude, step back. The religious are people just like you are and most churches run daycare because they have a huge fucking building that gets used a couple times a week. That it can be used to the benefit of their members is only tangentially related to religion if at all.
Actually, in this case, he's more or less on the mark. Many megachurches maintain these ancillary operations to keep their members within the community - the goal is to basically replace potentially secular elements of the parishioners' lives with the church.
Dude, step back. The religious are people just like you
Incredibly doubtful. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd gladly smoke a bowl with the vast majority of evangelicals I've talked to, but they are very different from me.
are and most churches run daycare because they have a huge fucking building that gets used a couple times a week. That it can be used to the benefit of their members is only tangentially related to religion if at all.
I didn't mean to say that the only reason for charity and church-day care is an explicit desire to spread the cult. There are plenty of other reasons, I'm sure, including simple individual empathy of church-goers. My point was that, on a systemic level, such church-sponsored activities inevitably become a platform for spreading and deepening the cult. I think government policies should look at the broader picture in general.
Also: there have been a lot of personal anecdotes about church charity posted, but I don't think any are from people who have actually been homeless. Here's one from a prominent homeless blog:
Twice I've gone to a shelter, both times as a teen. These experiences are why I don't back the faith-based initiatives that the federal government has promoted in recent years. These places, these pockets of hell staffed by well meaning, misguided people, these are the most degrading, humiliating, stigmatizing places in the world. I've actually never spent the night in anything called a homeless shelter. I preferred to return to the cold, rather than sit in the pew.
Let me tell you about my first time. Long term stable homeless living as an adult came later, but I was also a teen runaway. I was sixteen, but looked older. They can't let you in if you're under eighteen, unless it is exclusively a youth hostel. I approached the shelter, and was confronted by two very large men, security I guess. I told them I just had to lay down, didn't they have a cot I could sleep on? They said no. First I had to sit through the service. Exhausted and cold, I agreed, and I was taken into a pew. The preacher was chastising us for our sin in a rhythmic way, almost singing. If it were not so mean a message, I might have found it comforting. A supplicant converted, tears in his eyes, crying out testimony, confessing his bad ways and begging for forgiveness. The scene was surreal, as if I had a fever. I thought this stuff only happened in movies.
Appalled, angry, I stood up. I didn't need to be yelled at. I didn't need anything but a place to sleep. A warm place was what I needed and I was being attacked for my sins by someone who knew nothing about me, someone who knew nothing about the thirty other unhappy souls in the room seeking not God, but simple human comfort. As I stood up, two ushers came toward me, stern, gesturing me back to my seat. Big men. Scary. I was outnumbered, outmuscled, humiliated, but I was leaving. I waved them back. I said, "I want to leave. Show me the door."
A change came over them. Their eyes became shaded, and they escorted me out. No violence. No anger. They didn't ask me why. They didn't ask me what I would do now. They didn't care. I wasn't one of them.
Maybe it's different when shelters are run by Red Cross or by FEMA. I don't know. I've never been to one of those and am not likely to go to one, not even if my house were torn down by a natural disaster. Homeless shelters are crowded. You have to line up for beds at most shelters in the mid-afternoon, making it impossible to have both a job and a bed on the same day. You move through the shelter like a cog on an assembly line, from soup kitchen to bed, with no freedom to vary from the program. Personal security is low, and you are likely to have things stolen as you sleep. And more important than any of that, homeless shelters deprive you of dignity. They scream out that you have failed to take care of yourself, that you need.
No matter how much you need, you shouldn't feel that way.
I believe there is no tougher job than being a beggar. Nothing is harder than asking for compassion from people who hold you in contempt. Begging does a service, because it is a reminder to the fortunate that they could fall too, but it is a service I cannot perform.
We, each of us, deserve more dignity. Shelters are for someone else.
I don't know how emblematic this experience is of shelters in general. But I cannot imagine how any kind of oversight program would ensure a shelter like this tows the secular line with government funds. I think that is a pipe dream.
This is also why evangelical mega-churches increasingly have day-care centers and shit—it allows them to perform an ostensibly secular economic service (like charity) within the context of their cult.
Dude, step back. The religious are people just like you are and most churches run daycare because they have a huge fucking building that gets used a couple times a week. That it can be used to the benefit of their members is only tangentially related to religion if at all.
Actually, in this case, he's more or less on the mark. Many megachurches maintain these ancillary operations to keep their members within the community - the goal is to basically replace potentially secular elements of the parishioners' lives with the church.
I don't know about with megachurches but that is not how it works in any of my experience. Typically the church itself doesn't have the resources to run a full time day care and sublets out space to day care programs from what I've seen. The resource issue is obviously not a big deal when you have that much more money floating around though. I'm don't know how having a 1000 members turns you into a mustache twirling villain though.
Argh, this thread is rapidly proving that you don't mention religion in any context on The Internets.
Are they helping people without trying to convert them? If yes, ASSIST THIS GROUP. Simply because it means more people fucking helping.
If I'm shoring up a fucking levee and the church bus rolls up to help I'm not going to tell them to fuck off because they're from a church. I'm going to thank them for helping out. This is pretty simple.
I don't know if the hard "zomg religion is inherently evil!" group knows they come off as unhinged as the lolfundies.
Dude, step back. The religious are people just like you
Incredibly doubtful. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd gladly smoke a bowl with the vast majority of evangelicals I've talked to, but they are very different from me.
So long as you hold onto this attitude you're engaging in the chief fault of churches throughout the ages: the dehumanization of those who do not share your beliefs. Nothing good comes of such things.
Regardless, I'm going to note that that blog entry was written in 2004 referencing the past and is obviously not describing anything that would qualify under the law in question. It would grievously and spectacularly fail any such test administered to it.
Now I should probably stop talking and dragging this off track.
Anticipating criticism from the left, Obama said: “I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea — so long as we follow a few basic principles. 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. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.â€
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
It technically doesn't unless it can be proved that viewpoint discrimination is being used to funnel money to certain sects and religions but not towards others. Except in so far as the IRS labeling an organization as religious to ensure they get the tax free shtick and qualify for this can be considered an endorsement of religion.
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
I'm just hoping that this is more Machiavellian maneuvering and pandering, similar to the way he wants to "renegotiate" NAFTA.
Problem is that denying money to a charitable organization that gives secular aid to the poor because that organization happens to be a church could arguably be deemed discrimination based on religion.
Also, I'm not exactly torn asunder by the knowledge that this program might make people feel less dependent on government to get by. If your argument rests on the idea that this policy will make fewer people think, "wow, my government is really great," then your argument is pretty lame.
People would incorrectly give credit to the churches for the aid, not the government which is responsible for the aid. And this is discriminating in favor of religion, as opposed to secularism.
Qingu, all I know is you better not be lumping the Catholics in with the evangelicals. I don't know much about evangelical charities, but Catholic groups in general are nothing like you describe. At least the ones in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
Qingu, all I know is you better not be lumping the Catholics in with the evangelicals. I don't know much about evangelical charities, but Catholic groups in general are nothing like you describe. At least the ones in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
I can actually also note that I've worked (with scouts and Leo Club) at a couple soup kitchens which were church-sponsored and actually in churches which didn't evangelize at all beyond, at the beginning having a group saying of grace. In fact, I think the cafeteria didn't have any religious memorabilia in it. Protestant, if memory serves, not Catholic.
Maybe this discussion should be spun out into it's own thread. The general consensus is (or at least I think should be) Obama is treating this issue as well as it can be, the problem seems to be a fundamental disagreement about the nature of religious charities, which has a pretty tangential connection to the election.
Anticipating criticism from the left, Obama said: “I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea — so long as we follow a few basic principles. 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. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.â€
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
It technically doesn't unless it can be proved that viewpoint discrimination is being used to funnel money to certain sects and religions but not towards others. Except in so far as the IRS labeling an organization as religious to ensure they get the tax free shtick and qualify for this can be considered an endorsement of religion.
And where do atheists fit into all of this?
Nowhere unless they have an organization or charity. You could make an Athiestic Sewing Circle or something and get tax write offs at Michaels and help with your Crochet for the Blanketless project or something, probably. Or become a humanist.
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
I'm just hoping that this is more Machiavellian maneuvering and pandering, similar to the way he wants to "renegotiate" NAFTA.
Problem is that denying money to a charitable organization that gives secular aid to the poor because that organization happens to be a church could arguably be deemed discrimination based on religion.
Also, I'm not exactly torn asunder by the knowledge that this program might make people feel less dependent on government to get by. If your argument rests on the idea that this policy will make fewer people think, "wow, my government is really great," then your argument is pretty lame.
People would incorrectly give credit to the churches for the aid, not the government which is responsible for the aid. And this is discriminating in favor of religion, as opposed to secularism.
The church deserves some credit for getting the charity together and running it. Just like any group deserves some credit for it. The government helps fund it. By the same token, if churches can't give charity aid as well as secular groups, doesn't it mean you're biased against churches since these same people will think churches don't care about the needy?
So long as you hold onto this attitude you're engaging in the chief fault of churches throughout the ages: the dehumanization of those who do not share your beliefs. Nothing good comes of such things.
I don't think acknowledging serious differences in worldviews and life goals is equivalent to "dehumanizing" at all. Also, I don't know about you, but I only share marijuana with people I consider human.
And my cat.
Regardless, I'm going to note that that blog entry was written in 2004 referencing the past and is obviously not describing anything that would qualify under the law in question. It would grievously and spectacularly fail any such test administered to it.
How do we know? Has Obama actually talked about how he would monitor or enforce secularism in church charities? It seems like any effort to adequately enforce this would take up as much manpower as simply starting a bunch of other charities.
Qingu, all I know is you better not be lumping the Catholics in with the evangelicals. I don't know much about evangelical charities, but Catholic groups in general are nothing like you describe. At least the ones in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
This is a fair point. I have heard that Catholics in general are much better at keeping secular.
Qingu, all I know is you better not be lumping the Catholics in with the evangelicals. I don't know much about evangelical charities, but Catholic groups in general are nothing like you describe. At least the ones in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
In general, I feel like Catholicism is even nuttier than protestant Christianity, but they make up for it by being way better at "good works" and being less likely to hate science.
Edit: I'm getting slow at this. Stupid employment!
Anticipating criticism from the left, Obama said: “I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea — so long as we follow a few basic principles. 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. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.â€
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
It technically doesn't unless it can be proved that viewpoint discrimination is being used to funnel money to certain sects and religions but not towards others. Except in so far as the IRS labeling an organization as religious to ensure they get the tax free shtick and qualify for this can be considered an endorsement of religion.
And where do atheists fit into all of this?
Nowhere unless they have an organization or charity. You could make an Athiestic Sewing Circle or something and get tax write offs at Michaels and help with your Crochet for the Blanketless project or something, probably. Or become a humanist.
Well fuck me then. Too bad we can't just expand government soup kitchens and not pander to the Christian right. Oh well.
General Clark probably wouldn't get that much praise from this group. I can't speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command I think was somewhat less than stellar.
On McCain's press call, a new surrogate actually attacks Clark's service record. We've gone from it being bad for Clark to comment on McCain's service bearing on his executive record, to being fine with flat out attacking someone's record itself.
Qingu, all I know is you better not be lumping the Catholics in with the evangelicals. I don't know much about evangelical charities, but Catholic groups in general are nothing like you describe. At least the ones in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
In general, I feel like Catholicism is even nuttier than protestant Christianity, but they make up for it by being way better at "good works" and being less likely to hate science.
Catholicism is just nutty in different areas. Also remember, just because it's church doctrine it doesn't mean the Catholics believe it.
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
I'm just hoping that this is more Machiavellian maneuvering and pandering, similar to the way he wants to "renegotiate" NAFTA.
Problem is that denying money to a charitable organization that gives secular aid to the poor because that organization happens to be a church could arguably be deemed discrimination based on religion.
Also, I'm not exactly torn asunder by the knowledge that this program might make people feel less dependent on government to get by. If your argument rests on the idea that this policy will make fewer people think, "wow, my government is really great," then your argument is pretty lame.
People would incorrectly give credit to the churches for the aid, not the government which is responsible for the aid. And this is discriminating in favor of religion, as opposed to secularism.
The church deserves some credit for getting the charity together and running it. Just like any group deserves some credit for it. The government helps fund it. By the same token, if churches can't give charity aid as well as secular groups, doesn't it mean you're biased against churches since these same people will think churches don't care about the needy?
Howabout we give charity funding to charities?
If they care about the needy they can organize their own charity with their own cash and get their money privately. Rend unto Caesar and some such.
And religious based charities are not the same thing. Religious based charities must know their shit and have a concrete focus on helping the poor only. That is true for random Church X.
Maybe this discussion should be spun out into it's own thread. The general consensus is (or at least I think should be) Obama is treating this issue as well as it can be, the problem seems to be a fundamental disagreement about the nature of religious charities, which has a pretty tangential connection to the election.
No, I don't think he's handling the issue as well as it could be. I don't think that religious organizations should be treated as the charitable arm of the government.
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
I'm just hoping that this is more Machiavellian maneuvering and pandering, similar to the way he wants to "renegotiate" NAFTA.
Problem is that denying money to a charitable organization that gives secular aid to the poor because that organization happens to be a church could arguably be deemed discrimination based on religion.
Also, I'm not exactly torn asunder by the knowledge that this program might make people feel less dependent on government to get by. If your argument rests on the idea that this policy will make fewer people think, "wow, my government is really great," then your argument is pretty lame.
People would incorrectly give credit to the churches for the aid, not the government which is responsible for the aid. And this is discriminating in favor of religion, as opposed to secularism.
The church deserves some credit for getting the charity together and running it. Just like any group deserves some credit for it. The government helps fund it. By the same token, if churches can't give charity aid as well as secular groups, doesn't it mean you're biased against churches since these same people will think churches don't care about the needy?
Howabout we give charity funding to charities?
If they care about the needy they can organize their own charity with their own cash and get their money privately. Rend unto Caesar and some such.
And religious based charities are not the same thing. Religious based charities must know their shit and have a concrete focus on helping the poor only. That is true for random Church X.
So you believe secular groups that want to help the poor should raise their own cash without government aid?
As an aside: Religious based charities are the same thing. The soup kitchen is an active face to the charity. Where do you think said charity's money Goes? You can raise money to help the needy all you want, but unless you spend it helping them, you aren't doing Dick.
Note: That's what the faith based initiatives thing is. It's not giving money to church X, it's having church X make a group to do project Y, and giving that group money. You're funding their after school education program, their soup kitchen, whatnot. Not the fucking church itself.
Qingu, all I know is you better not be lumping the Catholics in with the evangelicals. I don't know much about evangelical charities, but Catholic groups in general are nothing like you describe. At least the ones in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
In general, I feel like Catholicism is even nuttier than protestant Christianity, but they make up for it by being way better at "good works" and being less likely to hate science.
I have more respect for Catholics than I do for most other Christian religions if only because of their consistency (note: I was raised Catholic, so that does color things for me). But yeah. Catholics are opposed to abortion, opposed to war, and opposed to the death penalty. They're consistent in their stance that people shouldn't be killing people (with the first case obviously assuming that you believe a fetus is a person). I may disagree with them on a number of points, but for not being part of that hypocracy, I respect them a lot.
Qingu, all I know is you better not be lumping the Catholics in with the evangelicals. I don't know much about evangelical charities, but Catholic groups in general are nothing like you describe. At least the ones in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
In general, I feel like Catholicism is even nuttier than protestant Christianity, but they make up for it by being way better at "good works" and being less likely to hate science.
Catholicism is just nutty in different areas. Also remember, just because it's church doctrine it doesn't mean the Catholics believe it.
That's basically my feeling on it. I don't like Catholicism, but it has a more metropolitan character than most other sects.
People would incorrectly give credit to the churches for the aid, not the government which is responsible for the aid. And this is discriminating in favor of religion, as opposed to secularism.
How is that different from people giving credit to Random Secular Organization instead of the government? This plan isn't about specifically giving to churches. It's about not refusing to give to churches. There's a big difference. Basically, the breakdown of religious:non-religious charity is the same both with and without this program. That being the case, how can it be said to discriminate unfairly in favor of religion?
That's why I don't much mind if a bit of low-key proselytizing slips through the cracks, here. The overall proportion of charities that are proselytizing stays, at worst, the same under this program. In practice, it probably goes down as a result of this program, even if you give funds to churches.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The church deserves some credit for getting the charity together and running it. Just like any group deserves some credit for it. The government helps fund it. By the same token, if churches can't give charity aid as well as secular groups, doesn't it mean you're biased against churches since these same people will think churches don't care about the needy?
Howabout we give charity funding to charities?
If they care about the needy they can organize their own charity with their own cash and get their money privately. Rend unto Caesar and some such.
And religious based charities are not the same thing. Religious based charities must know their shit and have a concrete focus on helping the poor only. That is true for random Church X.
Damn straight, collaboration is for commies and pussies (and pussy commies). We need 8 different soup kitchens competing with each other to get the hungry in their seats before the extra food has to be thrown out. Beggars are consumers too, and they should have a choice. Let the market figure out which ones survive to help others another day.
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited July 2008
Also, it's worth pointing out that groups compete for this funding. If the church isn't as good at helping the needy as the secular groups, they don't get the money. And if the churches are the best at it, they get the lion's share. Free market lol, and such.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Honest question: For the people who are defending the "faith based initiatives," how many of you criticized Bush for the same thing?
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
I opposed it when Bush started it. The fact that Obama, a man I trust, is supporting this gives me pause to reconsider my position. I'm still not sure I agree with it though.
Honest question: For the people who are defending the "faith based initiatives," how many of you criticized Bush for the same thing?
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
I always agreed with the concept of "faith-based initiatives" but criticized Bush heavily for his implementation.
There's nothing inherently wrong with using an existing infrastructure and labor base (churches) to help the needy, and if done "right" it would probably get us much more bang for our buck.
But the oversight needs to be there, and so far it's all been of the nudging and winking variety.
Also, from what I understand there's some pretty heavy discrimination against non-Christian (and maybe Jewish) groups.
Honest question: For the people who are defending the "faith based initiatives," how many of you criticized Bush for the same thing?
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
I've always thought it was a good idea and did support it back when I thought Bush might have possibly got a couple things right here and there. His execution of it (like pretty much everything else) left quite a bit to be desired.
Honest question: For the people who are defending the "faith based initiatives," how many of you criticized Bush for the same thing?
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
I always agreed with the concept of "faith-based initiatives" but criticized Bush heavily for his implementation.
There's nothing inherently wrong with using an existing infrastructure and labor base (churches) to help the needy, and if done "right" it would probably get us much more bang for our buck.
But the oversight needs to be there, and so far it's all been of the nudging and winking variety.
Also, from what I understand there's some pretty heavy discrimination against non-Christian (and maybe Jewish) groups.
Honest question: For the people who are defending the "faith based initiatives," how many of you criticized Bush for the same thing?
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
I opposed it when Bush started it. The fact that Obama, a man I trust, is supporting this gives me pause to reconsider my position. I'm still not sure I agree with it though.
You just need to accept that sometimes people (and politicians) that you generally agree with and trust will hold positions counter to your own. Kind of like me with guns.
Honest question: For the people who are defending the "faith based initiatives," how many of you criticized Bush for the same thing?
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
I opposed it when Bush started it. The fact that Obama, a man I trust, is supporting this gives me pause to reconsider my position. I'm still not sure I agree with it though.
You just need to accept that sometimes people (and politicians) that you generally agree with and trust will hold positions counter to your own. Kind of like me with guns.
More people realizing this would probably be the best thing to happen to American politics. It would cut the general nuttyness WAY down, I think.
Posts
Pretty much.
You guys must have some really shitty religious charities around you. Well, that, or Catholic Charities is just that much more awesome and my grandpa's soup kitchen is full of people capable of doing the impossible...and me.
This is also why evangelical mega-churches increasingly have day-care centers and shit—it allows them to perform an ostensibly secular economic service (like charity) within the context of their cult.
Now, yes, I know that American Christianity is not as hard-core as Salafi Islam. But my point is that religious charities cannot be neatly separated from religion. For religious groups, charity is a strategy of solidifying and expanding their cult. You can argue that individuals in religious groups do not see their charity as being part of a strategy, and I'd agree, but on a systemic level that is exactly what happens. I realize I am rabidly anti-religion, but I think there are good reasons for my attitude, and for not wanting to give religious people a platform with secular government money.
Dude, step back. The religious are people just like you are and most churches run daycare because they have a huge fucking building that gets used a couple times a week. That it can be used to the benefit of their members is only tangentially related to religion if at all.
Actually, in this case, he's more or less on the mark. Many megachurches maintain these ancillary operations to keep their members within the community - the goal is to basically replace potentially secular elements of the parishioners' lives with the church.
I didn't mean to say that the only reason for charity and church-day care is an explicit desire to spread the cult. There are plenty of other reasons, I'm sure, including simple individual empathy of church-goers. My point was that, on a systemic level, such church-sponsored activities inevitably become a platform for spreading and deepening the cult. I think government policies should look at the broader picture in general.
Also: there have been a lot of personal anecdotes about church charity posted, but I don't think any are from people who have actually been homeless. Here's one from a prominent homeless blog:
I don't know how emblematic this experience is of shelters in general. But I cannot imagine how any kind of oversight program would ensure a shelter like this tows the secular line with government funds. I think that is a pipe dream.
I don't know about with megachurches but that is not how it works in any of my experience. Typically the church itself doesn't have the resources to run a full time day care and sublets out space to day care programs from what I've seen. The resource issue is obviously not a big deal when you have that much more money floating around though. I'm don't know how having a 1000 members turns you into a mustache twirling villain though.
Are they helping people without trying to convert them? If yes, ASSIST THIS GROUP. Simply because it means more people fucking helping.
If I'm shoring up a fucking levee and the church bus rolls up to help I'm not going to tell them to fuck off because they're from a church. I'm going to thank them for helping out. This is pretty simple.
I don't know if the hard "zomg religion is inherently evil!" group knows they come off as unhinged as the lolfundies.
So long as you hold onto this attitude you're engaging in the chief fault of churches throughout the ages: the dehumanization of those who do not share your beliefs. Nothing good comes of such things.
Regardless, I'm going to note that that blog entry was written in 2004 referencing the past and is obviously not describing anything that would qualify under the law in question. It would grievously and spectacularly fail any such test administered to it.
Now I should probably stop talking and dragging this off track.
And where do atheists fit into all of this?
People would incorrectly give credit to the churches for the aid, not the government which is responsible for the aid. And this is discriminating in favor of religion, as opposed to secularism.
I can actually also note that I've worked (with scouts and Leo Club) at a couple soup kitchens which were church-sponsored and actually in churches which didn't evangelize at all beyond, at the beginning having a group saying of grace. In fact, I think the cafeteria didn't have any religious memorabilia in it. Protestant, if memory serves, not Catholic.
Nowhere unless they have an organization or charity. You could make an Athiestic Sewing Circle or something and get tax write offs at Michaels and help with your Crochet for the Blanketless project or something, probably. Or become a humanist.
The church deserves some credit for getting the charity together and running it. Just like any group deserves some credit for it. The government helps fund it. By the same token, if churches can't give charity aid as well as secular groups, doesn't it mean you're biased against churches since these same people will think churches don't care about the needy?
Howabout we give charity funding to charities?
This is a fair point. I have heard that Catholics in general are much better at keeping secular.
In general, I feel like Catholicism is even nuttier than protestant Christianity, but they make up for it by being way better at "good works" and being less likely to hate science.
Edit: I'm getting slow at this. Stupid employment!
Well fuck me then. Too bad we can't just expand government soup kitchens and not pander to the Christian right. Oh well.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_surrogate_demeans_clark.php
On McCain's press call, a new surrogate actually attacks Clark's service record. We've gone from it being bad for Clark to comment on McCain's service bearing on his executive record, to being fine with flat out attacking someone's record itself.
Message Discipline, people ><
Catholicism is just nutty in different areas. Also remember, just because it's church doctrine it doesn't mean the Catholics believe it.
On topic:
NRA will spend $40 million targetting Obama http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11452.html
If they care about the needy they can organize their own charity with their own cash and get their money privately. Rend unto Caesar and some such.
And religious based charities are not the same thing. Religious based charities must know their shit and have a concrete focus on helping the poor only. That is true for random Church X.
No, I don't think he's handling the issue as well as it could be. I don't think that religious organizations should be treated as the charitable arm of the government.
So you believe secular groups that want to help the poor should raise their own cash without government aid?
As an aside: Religious based charities are the same thing. The soup kitchen is an active face to the charity. Where do you think said charity's money Goes? You can raise money to help the needy all you want, but unless you spend it helping them, you aren't doing Dick.
Note: That's what the faith based initiatives thing is. It's not giving money to church X, it's having church X make a group to do project Y, and giving that group money. You're funding their after school education program, their soup kitchen, whatnot. Not the fucking church itself.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_speech_we_can_expand_fai.php
The whole speech if anyone cares.
I have more respect for Catholics than I do for most other Christian religions if only because of their consistency (note: I was raised Catholic, so that does color things for me). But yeah. Catholics are opposed to abortion, opposed to war, and opposed to the death penalty. They're consistent in their stance that people shouldn't be killing people (with the first case obviously assuming that you believe a fetus is a person). I may disagree with them on a number of points, but for not being part of that hypocracy, I respect them a lot.
Is that the language the NRA used?
How is that different from people giving credit to Random Secular Organization instead of the government? This plan isn't about specifically giving to churches. It's about not refusing to give to churches. There's a big difference. Basically, the breakdown of religious:non-religious charity is the same both with and without this program. That being the case, how can it be said to discriminate unfairly in favor of religion?
That's why I don't much mind if a bit of low-key proselytizing slips through the cracks, here. The overall proportion of charities that are proselytizing stays, at worst, the same under this program. In practice, it probably goes down as a result of this program, even if you give funds to churches.
Damn straight, collaboration is for commies and pussies (and pussy commies). We need 8 different soup kitchens competing with each other to get the hungry in their seats before the extra food has to be thrown out. Beggars are consumers too, and they should have a choice. Let the market figure out which ones survive to help others another day.
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
I didn't mind the office opening up. I don't like how the office Ran, which is something different (they played politics with funds distribution).
I'm pretty solid. I don't care who wants to open a soup kitchen. If it helps the needy, go fucking nuts and thanks.
I opposed it when Bush started it. The fact that Obama, a man I trust, is supporting this gives me pause to reconsider my position. I'm still not sure I agree with it though.
I always agreed with the concept of "faith-based initiatives" but criticized Bush heavily for his implementation.
There's nothing inherently wrong with using an existing infrastructure and labor base (churches) to help the needy, and if done "right" it would probably get us much more bang for our buck.
But the oversight needs to be there, and so far it's all been of the nudging and winking variety.
Also, from what I understand there's some pretty heavy discrimination against non-Christian (and maybe Jewish) groups.
This.
You just need to accept that sometimes people (and politicians) that you generally agree with and trust will hold positions counter to your own. Kind of like me with guns.
More people realizing this would probably be the best thing to happen to American politics. It would cut the general nuttyness WAY down, I think.