steering federal social service dollars to religious groups this is from the article. i assume they would use the money on social issues, but with a catch. promoting their religion. that's my guess.
#1: That's not giving money out based on religion. That's allowing religious groups to apply for money as non-religious groups do. Being a particular religion doesn't help you secure funds, nor is money allocated based on religion. #2: The money would not be allowed to be used on proselytizing.
Well put and I totally agree. The separation of church and state goes both ways. As much as we might not want church interfering in matters of states would churches like state interferring in matters of church? Government is nevery without strings attached and government funding will inevitably lead to more oversight of churches and a host of other issues that the Fed has to address which churches might not want to deal with. The other big problem I have with this type of program is that it will inevitable lead to the government picking and choosing between religions. For instance if a group of Satanist start a soup kitchen, they aren't proselytizing for Satan just starting a soup kitchen, would they have the same access to funds as a Christian, Jewish or Muslim group?
the government already picks and choosing different charities to give federal funds to. for example, right no Reliant Energy has programs for low income families to get gov't assitance to help pay light bills. but the money doesn't go to reliant, it goes to gov't social work offices as well as churches and other organizations the logic behind this has nothing to do with religion, its just churches are the type of organiztions the gov't wants to get involved with in helping people. the theory is that these churches are better qualified to assess the needs of the community, they are closer to the citizens. for Reliant Energy, the person is just another customer, they don't know who really can use the help the government is providing.
Except that there is no Constitutional establishment clause regarding non-religious organizations. The government is free to pick and choose, fund, or regulate non-religious orginizatons. It Constitutionally should not for religious institutions. I think religion has everything to do with this particularly politically. Leaving that aside though even if this was just about funding charitable organization there still are Constitutional issues regarding church and state that don't exist for non-religious institutions. The religious aspect can't be ignored by the government.
The primary issue with faith-based delivery of services is the degree of oversight regarding the manner in which churches deliver these services. Flatly, there is not enough oversight. As long as a Christian church delivers the same level of service to non-christian applicants, there should not be a problem. For the vast majority of charities and churches this has not been an issue. With some it has been the subject of civil rights complaints. [Don't ask, because I can not divulge details.] Even where equitable service exists, many non-christian applicants may very well be disinclined to seek assistance. I specifically refer to Christian faith-based services because the overwhelming majority of all entities are Christian. Under Bush, our deepest fears of abuse are very real, especially with this administration's dismal track record of scandal. As a long time state employee, I fear some degree of religious bias has already become institutionalized in the faith-based delivery arena. Maybe a new administration can regain control.
We are in agreement on this one, wes. Separation of church and state is one of the bedrocks of our political system. I've never liked it when GOP politicians use religion during a campaign or for other political purposes. I don't like it from Barack Obama, either. No deal breaker, and some will like what he's attempting to do, one would assume, but personally, I don't like it at all. Why this flurry of things from Barack that I don't like? Maybe he needs to take a week off with Michelle and lay on a nice beach somewhere, relax, and maybe ponder where he wants to take his campaign. Things seem a bit disjointed at the moment. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
maybe we should get a lawyer on this topic but to me this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. these funds aren't there to support to the religion, the church or whatever institution is just a conduit to disperse gov't funds for initiatives that have nothing to do with religion.
If that is case then do you believe a soup kitchen run by Satanist will have the same acces to funds as one run by Christians? Also do you believe that the Fed should have oversight of the religious institutions regarding their hiring practices as in the case of other organizations federally funded.
This is extreme, I don't believe a bunch of devil worshipers would care too much about feeding the needy but if their intentions are good, why not. that's the point. honestly I don't feel the need that there should be an office devoted "faith based" projects but you must realize that gov't money is already going to organizations who apply for it, including religious ones. my problem isn't the "faith" aspect, its the fact that it really serves no purpose and is redundant.
I think this is the key to the whole thing. The idea behind this - treating a faith-based organization's non-faith-related charity work the same as a non-faith-based charity - is pretty simple and straightforward. How to police it and provide proper oversight is a whole lot more complicated.
the faith base initiative was a pander by bush. it would be nice if obama eliminated but that would play right into the hands of all the rumors. he just can't do it.
I don't much of the history here, but here's the flipside of this: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/barack_obama_/2008/07/obama_and_faith_old_wine_new_bottle.php Obama and Faith: Old Wine, New Bottle Obama's speech today has gotten excellent reviews, and justifiably so. But looking at it, it's not really anything new. Consider this report from Beliefnet (h/t Sullivan): [pre] Obama's announcement today about wanting to expand President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives into what he's calling a President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships . . . is so significant. Not only is Obama showing how faith would shape policy in his administration, he's being so bold as to criticize Bush's faith-based program for not going far enough in opening the federal social services spigot to churches and other faith-based groups. In effect, he's out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President's specialty areas--connecting faith and public policy.[/pre] For this, Sullivan calls Obama (somewhat flippantly) the "Christianist-in-Chief" and says that this report is "hard to disagree with." Well, watch me. Ever since the Great Society, government has been "opening the spigot" to churches and other faith-based groups. Groups here in southern California like Catholic Charities and the Jewish Federation routinely receive very high proportions of their budgets from government grants--sometimes even greater than 50%. Progressives have been partnering with faith-based groups long before George Bush claimed to be born-again. The biggest difference with Bush was twofold: 1) he suggested that he would funnel money to faith-based groups for programs involving active proselytization, which is unconstitutional; and 2) he actually used the program to support groups in order to generate support for Republicans, which might have been illegal. Obama made it very clear that he would do no such thing: he's no more a "Christianist" than any policy wonk who contracts with faith-based social services providers to provide social service. So what's new? The fact that he is saying it, that he is out front with it, that he is sending a cultural signal that he embraces it. In that sense, it is both good policy and good politics. And as the Beliefnet story makes clear, it puts McCain in a box because for him to do something similar would be transparently opportunistic. But let's make it clear that Obama isn't "connecting faith and public policy." Progressives have been doing this for a long time.
I work every other weekend for a faith based charity. It is a crisis shelter for children in stressful family situations. It is owned by the Church of the Bretheren but gets most of its funding from the Department of Public Welfare. It is an absolutely great program that accepts children of all backgrounds and religions. It also hires people of different (or no) religious affiliations. Do I "Prostelitize" --- only that I try to reflect God's love onto these kids by my actions. Try to show them what unconditional love looks like.
Because of the establishment clause you can't treat them the same though. This is a huge problem. Given separation of church and state how do you police a religious based charity? US law says that money can't go to an organization with discriminatory practices. Should a Christian group then be forced to hire a Satanist caseworker if one applies?
shishir you need to read the article major posted and let it go. this isn't anything new or ground breaking, it seems to me you only want to criticize obama
