[BurlyShirley]

So, now you are backpedaling and trying to say that it's not so much about the faith-based orgs. but the OTHER orgs as well? Nice try. The fact that they fund faith-based orgs. is still problematic, especially when the secular orgs (some of which ARE private even though you seem to think they aren't) are usually begging for more funding so that they can do a better job. You can equivocate all you want, but the fact remains that it is government entanglement with religion, and government funded endorsement of religion, both of which are illegal.

LMAO!
You are pathetic.
I just owned you so bad, and that's the best you got

I have to go to class. You lose.

 

[ohio]

Again, why would you want to expand govt when private entities could do a fine job? Typical socialist crap here.

Secular organizations are just as private as churches. Why does funding an existing secular org cost more than funding an existing faith-based org?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Secular organizations are just as private as churches. Why does funding an existing secular org cost more than funding an existing faith-based org?

I misread what he wrote. I actually thought he was talking about govt. orgs. Yes we should fund those, and those of the churches, exactly as the bill states.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I misread what he wrote. I actually thought he was talking about govt. orgs. Yes we should fund those, and those of the churches, exactly as the bill states.

You might want to take back your claim on pwning me then.

Also, you might want to protest the formation of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives that was created by Bush in order to make sure that money that was going to secular charities would go to religious ones instead? Isn't that a waste of taxpayer money and an unnecessary expansion of government?

I don't "lose" on this. The funding of faith-based groups is a violation of church and state.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030702065.html

 

[Silver]

Hello Mr. Cynic...................of all the churches in this area I'm familiar with yes you could do just what you said and get help. You could do that same thing at our local rescue mission (Christian based) and get help.

Now maybe Westboro Baptist would laugh at you.............but you're exagerating a bit........

I think you have much too high an opinion of your co-religionists. I might get a bowl of soup and be sent on my way, but a professing member is going to be first in line for a cot.

You have to remember that you're pretty kooky (hell, you've read your bible) as far as most Christians go in this country, and I'm guessing that you probably gravitate to a church where that isn't frowned upon.

Here's another hypothetical: Levi Cohen is homeless and walks into a shelter run by an Islamic charity that is getting federal funds. Are you still feeling good about the idea?

 

[Andyman_1970]

I think you have much too high an opinion of your co-religionists. I might get a bowl of soup and be sent on my way, but a professing member is going to be first in line for a cot.

I used to regularly volunteer at the local rescue mission (Christian organization) here, and would regularly work our churches food pantry……..not once have we given preferential treatment to a Christian over a non believer.

So I speak from experience.

You have to remember that you're pretty kooky (hell, you've read your bible) as far as most Christians go in this country, and I'm guessing that you probably gravitate to a church where that isn't frowned upon.

I take that as a huge compliment being referred to as “kooky”……………thanks.

Here's another hypothetical: Levi Cohen is homeless and walks into a shelter run by an Islamic charity that is getting federal funds. Are you still feeling good about the idea?

Yeah why not? Muslims have some very strict rules (from what I have heard) about taking care of people in need and treating them with respect.

 

[JRogers]

I'll say no if it is detrimental to others. Religion in Government leads to things like no abortion rights, no gay marriage rights, Sharia etc depending on the religion. Would you like your mom/sister/wife to have to wear a burqua? How about being stoned to death because they had premarital sex? How about having to bear a child after they were raped?

So yes, I'd say no to religion in government.

Religion is useful for those who seek it's shelter, or wish to believe in something greater then themselves and the world around them. Some of these organizations are truly beneficial to manking, there is no question there. All of these beneficial organizations are non governmental, and that is how it should stay.

There is a difference between the mixing of religion and government and the establishment of state religion or inexcusably aiding a religious organization. The first amendment is open to much debate about the limits of this. There are many, many ways in which government and religion come together. This executive order is only in a list of other things that have become a part of the culture and are thus accepted.

Should churches get tax breaks? Should the military pay for chaplains to administer services to troops? Should parochial schools get any assistance at all, as other private schools do? There have been debates about all of these and many other issues with the courts and public opinion coming down in various places.


Plus, if you read the order, it doesn't say that to government is just handing over a fatty check to some church because they feel like it. Basically, this establishes a center to assist programs that are already operating in removing barriers that stop them from performing their mission. Would it make you guys feel better if these community org's cut off their religious ties and formed de facto religious groups? It's not as simple as just saying we can give money to secular organizations. The infrastructure is already set up, the buildings are there, the workfrorce is organized through existing organizations- ignoring this would not be expedient.

If you think that giving information and aid to a church affiliated soup kitchen or social aid organization (which they may be entitled to and unaware of it!) is going to establish a state religion or infuse the government with religious values, then your suspicion of religion borders on paranoia.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

There is a difference between the mixing of religion and government and the establishment of state religion or inexcusably aiding a religious organization. The first amendment is open to much debate about the limits of this. There are many, many ways in which government and religion come together. This executive order is only in a list of other things that have become a part of the culture and are thus accepted.

Did you read the article I posted a couple posts ago?

Also, the current state of the first amendment is set by case law, and the presiding one at the moment is usually the Lemon test. Perhaps you should look at that to get some of your answers. "Establishment" is not the deciding factor, and mixing (or entanglement really) is a huge factor.

Plus, if you read the order, it doesn't say that to government is just handing over a fatty check to some church because they feel like it. Basically, this establishes a center to assist programs that are already operating in removing barriers that stop them from performing their mission. Would it make you guys feel better if these community org's cut off their religious ties and formed de facto religious groups? It's not as simple as just saying we can give money to secular organizations. The infrastructure is already set up, the buildings are there, the workfrorce is organized through existing organizations- ignoring this would not be expedient.

Their mission is to proselytize, to spread the "Good word." There are secular organizations that are already set up and established that are receiving less funding so that religious soup kitchens can dole out food and the "Good word." If the religious groups want to continue to distribute aid, then good for them, but the government should not be endorsing their religion in the process, which is what inevitably happens.

If you think that giving information and aid to a church affiliated soup kitchen or social aid organization (which they may be entitled to and unaware of it!) is going to establish a state religion or infuse the government with religious values, then your suspicion of religion borders on paranoia.

It's not so much infusing the gov. with religious values as it is protecting the rights of the individuals involved from the government.

 

[Silver]

Yeah why not? Muslims have some very strict rules (from what I have heard) about taking care of people in need and treating them with respect.

Which is why the extreme elements of their religion wants to exterminate Jews, and the moderates are somewhat sympathetic to that aim.

Another hypothetical: A gay couple with an adopted kid walk into an Operation Blessing shelter after a hurricane.

Or another: A white homeless guy walks into a Nation of Islam's soup kitchen.

You can keep going with this for a long time. One other thing that should bother you about this: It's not charity when you're getting paid to do it.

I'm not worried about you. I'm worried about Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, etc. And you can bet they are going to be lining up like pigs at the trough...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Actually, surprisingly enough, Robertson's group, Operation Blessing, has said in the past that they would not seek federal funds for their operations.

 

[Silver]

Actually, surprisingly enough, Robertson's group, Operation Blessing, has said in the past that they would not seek federal funds for their operations.

I saw that in the WaPo article...but I'm willing to bet that changes.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I saw that in the WaPo article...but I'm willing to bet that changes.

Yeah, it very well might. When Bush is explicitly telling them that the gov. will pay them to proselytize, they might wise up and take it.

 

[BurlyShirley]

You might want to take back your claim on pwning me then.

Also, you might want to protest the formation of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives that was created by Bush in order to make sure that money that was going to secular charities would go to religious ones instead? Isn't that a waste of taxpayer money and an unnecessary expansion of government?

I don't "lose" on this. The funding of faith-based groups is a violation of church and state.

Why would I take that back? You're still just as wrong. Go read the thing again and look at your argument.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Why would I take that back? You're still just as wrong. Go read the thing again and look at your argument.

So, because the document says "Other" that means that you are correct that the government should continue to illegally give money to faith-based groups so that they can proselytize. Ummmmmm, yeah. OK, say it with me this time...red herring.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Why would I take that back? You're still just as wrong. Go read the thing again and look at your argument.

Oh, and Burly, gain some intellectual honesty while you are at it. Tell me if it is more of an increase of government to create a whole new department, and smaller groups within already established departments, or to re-allocate money to established secular groups instead of religious ones. If you are confused, you might want to read the article I posted.

 

[JRogers]

Did you read the article I posted a couple posts ago?

Also, the current state of the first amendment is set by case law, and the presiding one at the moment is usually the Lemon test. Perhaps you should look at that to get some of your answers. "Establishment" is not the deciding factor, and mixing (or entanglement really) is a huge factor.

Their mission is to proselytize, to spread the "Good word." There are secular organizations that are already set up and established that are receiving less funding so that religious soup kitchens can dole out food and the "Good word." If the religious groups want to continue to distribute aid, then good for them, but the government should not be endorsing their religion in the process, which is what inevitably happens.

It's not so much infusing the gov. with religious values as it is protecting the rights of the individuals involved from the government.

Yes, I read the article and I am familiar with the constitution, the Lemon case and other legal issues. Constitutional law is not my speciality but, these days, it's basically my "job" to think about religious issues.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the Lemon test. Let's review it's commonly accepted purposes and consider them in the context of, say, a soup kitchen:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose.
-Nobody would argue that feeding the homeless does not have a legitimate secular purpose.

2.The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.
-Only if you accept that the primary and perhaps sole goal of modern mainstream religions is to increase their following (which I do not believe to be true), then objections on this point are valid. But, the purpose of the government action here is to provide social services effectively and that is all.

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
-This is the only real grounds for objection but only because it is so vague that it is rendered almost useless. I do not think that providing aid through religious organizations (note that the government is not actually working through religious organizations, just with them- an important distinction) is "excessive." Part of the standard is here to protect against the confusing of religious and governmental roles and operations, which this act does not violate. There is not too much "meddling" going on on either side. Particularly, this is true because of the explicitly secular service being provided.

The Lemon test was updated and revised more recently. This complicates the situation, but still does not settle it against the government action. To be clear, the Agostini decision established points against these features:
1. Government indoctrination
-This is hardly the concern here.

2. Defining the recipients of government benefits based on religion
-Here, as shown by comments made on this board, is the only place for objection. If it was shown that this was a large concern, then I would probably oppose the program. But, I have not been shown this, nor to I believe that this is as much of a concern as people might think. Show me something concrete, legit and systematic and I might change my mind. The mere possibility of discrimination is not enough to stop a program.

3. Excessive entanglement between government and religion.
-Already discussed.

The Lemon case was not too much of a difficult decision because it specifically dealt with education- telling young people what to think is an explicit part of that process. This is a different process than other social services entirely.

 

[JRogers]

By the way, just to give an example that I thought of, the Salvation Army is explicitly religious and they do preach and perform religious functions in some contexts. However, you don't have to pass a test of faith and you don't get sent to the back of the line if you don't believe their message but still want to get a cheap shirt at a thrift shop. In my involvment working with and for kitchens and any religiously-affiliated aid organizations I was never confronted with what seemed to be a test of faith for social services when the mission was to provide those services.

 

[Changleen]

Only if you accept that the primary and perhaps sole goal of modern mainstream religions is to increase their following (which I do not believe to be true)

Dude, it SO is. That is the primary goal of every religion.

 

[JRogers]

Dude, it SO is. That is the primary goal of every religion.

First of all, the advent of proselytizing religions has not been the historical norm in the scope of human history. Furthermore, many religious groups do not do this very much, directly or indirectly. One could even say that it is a distinctly Christian phenomenon, apart from scattered exceptions. Even at that point, there are a lot of Christian denominations that do not put much energy into increasing their size- other issues are of larger concern. Being concerned with size and increasing membership is different than making conversion the primary focus of energy. Not that increasing size is not a concern, but it is not always or usually the primary one. In any case, this is a free and pluralistic society. If religion expands it is because people want religion.

If you think that the primary goal of every religion is simply to sustain itself by increasing membership, you are wrong. Not only is this not backed by historical fact, it makes no sense. A religion based on this idea and little more would crumble without another more compelling purpose.

Your theories of religion as a manipulative tool of societal control that you've voiced here in the past border on conspiracy and carry little weight to someone who has any respect at all for religion and its adherents.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

First of all, the advent of proselytizing religions has not been the historical norm in the scope of human history. Furthermore, many religious groups do not do this very much, directly or indirectly. One could even say that it is a distinctly Christian phenomenon, apart from scattered exceptions. Even at that point, there are a lot of Christian denominations that do not put much energy into increasing their size- other issues are of larger concern. Being concerned with size and increasing membership is different than making conversion the primary focus of energy. Not that increasing size is not a concern, but it is not always or usually the primary one. In any case, this is a free and pluralistic society. If religion expands it is because people want religion.

If you think that the primary goal of every religion is simply to sustain itself by increasing membership, you are wrong. Not only is this not backed by historical fact, it makes no sense. A religion based on this idea and little more would crumble without another more compelling purpose.

Your theories of religion as a manipulative tool of societal control that you've voiced here in the past border on conspiracy and carry little weight to someone who has any respect at all for religion and its adherents.

*Cough* Mob mentality *cough* Ummm...have you missed the last 5,000 years of human history?? And the Crusades were just a bunch of guys riding across the desert to find Buddha....sure...meh...what's the point...nevermind....

 

[Silver]

First of all, the advent of proselytizing religions has not been the historical norm in the scope of human history. Furthermore, many religious groups do not do this very much, directly or indirectly. One could even say that it is a distinctly Christian phenomenon, apart from scattered exceptions.

Without granting your first point (An off the cuff reaction from me is that you might be correct. Instead of converting, way back when you would merely try to kill members of a different tribe or religion), one can also say with a great deal of confidence that most of this federal money will be going to distinctly Christian organizations, the same ones who you claim are most likely to proselytize.

 

[JRogers]

Without granting your first point (An off the cuff reaction from me is that you might be correct. Instead of converting, way back when you would merely try to kill members of a different tribe or religion), one can also say with a great deal of confidence that most of this federal money will be going to distinctly Christian organizations, the same ones who you claim are most likely to proselytize.

The fact remains- giving money (which, again, is not exactly the issue here as the order is not about handing over money, it's about providing support) to a social service that happens to be affiliated (and I think that phrasing probably accurately reflects how the targeted services operate) with a religious organization does not forward the organization's goal of gaining converts because the objective of these programs is to provide social services and not provide religious instruction, preaching or whatever else. Those areas of religious organizations, by law, cannot be given money or government aid.

The only reason to reject this order is if you believe that these organizations can and will use the support of the government to forward their goals of increasing membership or they will administer benefits only to those who accept their ideas. There is no evidence that this is the case and statements to contrary, so far, appear to be relying only on suspicions that are exaggerated and do not address the root of the issue. Christian organizations may be more likely to actively seek new members, but I still would not consider them likely to use their aid branches as a vehicle for doing this. I do not blindly trust churches to do it right, but I do believe that, overwhelmingly, it is done right (meaning without discrimination or pressure on recipients of aid). Oversight, as with ANY program (face it, any social program can be used to push something), is necessary.

 

[ohio]

And the fact remains that if this program were truly inclusive of all organizations it wouldn't be called "faith-based and community organizations" it would be called "community organizations." Government doling out of cash should be entirely blind to religious affiliation and lack thereof, and entirely cognizant of the quality of the service. The very name of this organization indicates that this is not the case.

If I called my water fountain 'For White People and Others,' would that indicate some inherent bias in my system?

 

[JRogers]

*Cough* Mob mentality *cough* Ummm...have you missed the last 5,000 years of human history?? And the Crusades were just a bunch of guys riding across the desert to find Buddha....sure...meh...what's the point...nevermind....

Have you? And Stalin and Mao were just nice guys who got a bad image after murdering a few million people. Atheist (as they were) or religious, violence and stupidity know no bounds.

How many wars and conflicts have been caused or helped along by development, democracy, capitalism, justice and rationalism? Are you so quick to recognize the faults in those systems?

Of course, religion can be used as a tool of social control, but that is not why it exists and why it persists- that was my point.

 

[JRogers]

And the fact remains that if this program were truly inclusive of all organizations it wouldn't be called "faith-based and community organizations" it would be called "community organizations." Government doling out of cash should be entirely blind to religious affiliation and lack thereof, and entirely cognizant of the quality of the service. The very name of this organization indicates that this is not the case.

If I called my water fountain 'For White People and Others,' would that indicate some inherent bias in my system?

So, essentially, you are drawing the conclusion that there will be an inherent bias in administration based on the title of the act, which may have only been written so as to stress its inclusion and prevent others from blocking faith-based programs?

If that's the case, you'll have to do better than that. This is an issue of application, not wording.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

JRogers
When considering the Lemon Test, one has to consider what the actual recipients of the funding are doing. If the orgs. are using the funding to proselytize, then the primary purpose of the funding no longer is about providing food, but about providing religion, which is a clear violation. The fact that other programs have already done it is very problematic for the program in general.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2509

http://www.ffrf.org/news/2005/NMprisonlawsuit.php

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12602prs20050516.html

These are all articles about cases where faith-based organizations have used government funds to proselytize.

Further, one has to make the distinction of what constitutes proselytizing. When a homeless man walks into a soup kitchen that has a big cross erected inside, that is stretching the boundaries of what is acceptable because it's using the government's money to advertise for their religion.

And, if you don't think that one of the main purposes of religion is not to propagate itself you might want to ask yourself why Catholics are not allowed to use birth control. Why do churches have Sunday School? Why are there billboards that are supposedly from god?

Edit: Oh yeah, almost forgot...this part of the article was a bit troublesome too...

Congress has appropriated $67.9 billion for emergency supplemental hurricane relief, among other assistance, a portion of which is reserved for FEMA. Generally, the agency is restricted by law from engaging with religious organizations for disaster operations.

 

[Reactor]

So, essentially, you are drawing the conclusion that there will be an inherent bias in administration based on the title of the act, which may have only been written so as to stress its inclusion and prevent others from blocking faith-based programs?

If that's the case, you'll have to do better than that. This is an issue of application, not wording.

Bush/Dick "Bungalow Bill" Cheney have made it abundantly clear in multiple statements that it is their mission (along with many other republicans) to expand executive branch power, undermine the separation of church and state, undermine and neutralize the judiciary, and shift the tax burden to the middle and lower class.

The Judiciary is particularly important because they keep executive power in check, because they are the balance between the executive and legislative branches. The court prevents many actions most of the public agrees to be unconstitutional from happening or continuing. Judges don't get up one morning and say, "hey, I think I'll make abortion legal today" Laws, all laws, have to be framed in the constitution. A law that violates the constitution, or "settled law" then descends from supreme court decisions isn't a law. No single judge can decision that stands. A district court judge can have his decision overturned by the Court of Appeals, which in turn can be overturned by the Supreme Court.

What's the point? There is no such thing as an activist judge, it takes multiple activist judges (about five on the supreme court) to undermine the justice system. Bush has done just that. He ca now reasonably expect the court to rule in his favor on a variety of questions, including to some extent Abortion, Illegal search and seizure (wiretaps), separation of church and state. To a large extent he put himself in the position to destroy some of the underpinnings of modern society an set our country back a hundred years or more.

Think strict separation of church and state isn't a good idea? Look at the middle east... or the Balkans.....this is what happens when religion wields too much power in government. Ethnic cleansing, religious decrees, Civil war.

 

[Sean Nelson]

There is nothing in that executive order that requires people, homeless or otherwise, to believe in god in order to eat soup. Hell, a church doesn't even require belief in god in their soup kitchens.

 

[kidwoo]

There is nothing in that executive order that requires people, homeless or otherwise, to believe in god in order to eat soup. Hell, a church doesn't even require belief in god in their soup kitchens.

Fat white guy googling 'faith based' ended up on a mountain bike site says what?

 

[Pesqueeb]

Fat white guy googling 'faith based' ended up on a mountain bike site says what?

Is this going to be like the gun nut that some how wound up here arguing his rhetoric?

 

[H8R]

There is nothing in that executive order that requires people, homeless or otherwise, to believe in god in order to eat soup. Hell, a church doesn't even require belief in god in their soup kitchens.

You've resurrected this thread is from 2006, and you suck.

I hereby dub thee: "NecroDouche".

 

[Pesqueeb]

I hereby dub thee: "NecroDouche".

Second!



Whats the quickest someone has ever received a custom title?

 

[kidwoo]

Is this going to be like the gun nut that some how wound up here arguing his rhetoric?

That's certainly my assumption