Global-health forum calls for religious, secular solidarity

[cbayer]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018696907_globalhealth16m.html

Originally published Sunday, July 15, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Participants at a packed global health forum at McCaw Hall were told that Christian, government and secular groups can work together to foster humanitarian programs around the world

By Sandi Doughton
Seattle Times science reporter

Imagine a Christian organization, funded by the U.S. government, working with mosques in Afghanistan to improve child survival — and all in the shadow of the U.S. military.

"That's like throwing a match on kerosene," said Richard Stearns, the president of World Vision, to a packed house Sunday during a global health forum at McCaw Hall.

But those disparate groups, including the Federal Way-based Christian charity, were able to work together to achieve their common humanitarian goal. The key to such collaborations, Stearns said, is for religious groups to recognize that secular organizations and groups from other faiths are not three-headed monsters — and vice versa. "There is room for everyone, and we can't afford to have anyone on the sidelines," he said.

With more than 200 Seattle-area organizations working to improve health and reduce poverty in the world's poorest nations, the goal of Sunday's forum was to foster collaboration between faith-based and secular groups, said Lisa Cohen, executive director of the Washington Global Health Alliance, one of the event organizers.

more at link

[Lionessa]

1. Xtian organization funded by US gov't, STOP RIGHT THERE.

If we want to give health funding to Afghanistan, we need to give as directly as possible, not through orgs that promote myths and take a cut for themselves.

Haven't we learned yet, this extra layered system of assistance, like Student Loans, only makes everything cost more with more probability towards corruptions.

Seriously a religious org shouldn't get a dime from the gov't, separation. Only non-denominational, humanitarian non-profits should be doing this with gov't money in the first place.

[cbayer]

2. Yes we certainly don't want to support those evil religious organizations that are

working to improve health and reduce poverty in the world's poorest nations. Things like supplying polio vaccine in Nigeria and birth control in Africa and India.


Perhaps you should actually read the article.

[dmallind]

3. And no secular groups do the same?

Why use taxpayer money to prop up missionary charity when there are plenty of purely charity groups? What does any religious charity do in the realm of objective help that cannot be done and is not being done by a secular charity? Why should a secular government fund the former, other than the usual massive Christian bias and privilege?

[cbayer]

6. You might note in the article that the particular organizations highlighted

have rules about proselytizing.

There are secular groups involved as well. The whole point is how well they work together and how much they have been able to accomplish.

[Lionessa]

13. And of course xians ALWAYs follow the RULES. Geez, you're naive.

[dmallind]

20. Not the question - what exclusive benefit do religious charities provide?

Could the same goals not be achieved without entaqnglement and preferential treatment? If not why not? Given how common the 'argument' of "look at all the lovely benefits of religious charity" is when the value of religion is under discussion, it should be easy to a) specify them and b) acknowledge that we are all paying for it via taxes anyway.

[cbayer]

22. There is no doubt that they services could be provided solely by secular organizations, but

when they are not doing so, I don't see a problem with religious organizations doing it.

The bulk of their funding comes from private sources and internal programs. The US funding appears to be grants for which any group can apply.

[Lionessa]

4. If they really want to help, rather than spread their "word," then re-org to do that without the

religious ties. I've read about the help these orgs give and the cost and pressures therein, and I don't want to read the entire article. It should be by the US gov't through people for people. NOT by the US gov't through the xian provacateurs to islamic needy. This idea that xianity somehow brings grace and goodness to all issues is even once again rearing it's head in our justice system, penal system, and womens' health care rights. I will not pretend that one arm of the religion is good, while knowing that the heart and other other and both legs are trying to ruin my freedom from religion.

Don't f'ing tell me to pretend that when religious do potentially good thing, they aren't evil. Y'know Hanibal was apparently very hospitable to those he ultimately ate or fed to his next victims.

[cbayer]

7. If you read the article you would see that these groups do not proselytize

and they do provide people, supplies and money that are not coming from other organizations. And the organizations include both christians and muslims.

This kind of broad brush assumption without bothering to examine the facts is lazy, but convenient.

I will tell you that when the religious do good things, they are not evil. The comparison to Hannibal is lame.

[Lionessa]

9. Then they have no need to identify by religion and should stop.

The facts are that you want me to ignore the most for a moment, which I will not do. If they are not behaving religiously, and they are using US gov't monies (ie taxes), then they should not be reliigiously affiliated. The reason no other is providing is because US gov't is giving it to a religion instead of the secular groups. Washing our taxes through religious orgs just sickens me. They already pay no taxes though owning and running so many high priced and high paid entities like hospitals, private schools, private housing condos and the like, and pay no taxes, not even property usually.

Nope, not okay. And no it isn't lame, try talking to any fundy that ever first got assimilated then got free. Initially they seem so nice and caring and and and ....

Yeah, be naive if you want, I shall not regress as you seem to desire to.

[cbayer]

10. Suit yourself. I am going to stand behind organizations that do this kind of work,

be they religious or not.

[Lionessa]

14. Hence how they got enough power to continue to erode rights in the USA, people like you.

Those that support the devilish "good" they do to keep you distracted from the most of the godly "bad" that they wreak upon most.

[cbayer]

15. I'll let the women receiving birth control in areas where they can't otherwise get it know.

Oh, and the children who won't get polio.

[Lionessa]

5. No, not when 90% of it's body is over-running schools, womens healthcare, etc.

So 10% or less of the body religious might do a little good, if the price is right. Whoopti, I think you should rah rah for 'em. I won't.

[cbayer]

8. 90%? Have a link to back that up?

[Lionessa]

12. Are you trying to tell me you do NOT see the hateful and regressive arm and it's successes

in the past and again recently regarding womens' healthcare, womens' self-esteem, womens' equality, ignorance in schools instead of science, racism, bigotry against LGBT, and in our justice, penal, police, and military systems?

I think that folks like you just choose to ignore reality.

[cbayer]

16. 90%?

[Lionessa]

18. Thank you for showing your ignorance then. I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

If "90%?" is all you have to offer to that post, you're being intentionally obtuse and obnoxious.

Bless your heart.

[rrneck]

11. How do we keep them from using our tax dollars

to proselytize to themselves?

[cbayer]

17. Not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

[rrneck]

19. The organization grows by gaining the support

of new believers through proselytizeing. It keeps the support of existing members by "strengthening their faith" with news of all the good works the organization has done with their support. That's a sort of internal proselytizing.

Proselytizing is religious PR. Telling people how wonderful you are makes you look good, and every corporation on earth budgets for it. They also have company newsletters, employees of the month, and human interest stories that promote "teamwork" and "company loyalty". All of those techniques are indistinguishable from religious PR, otherwise known as proselytizing.

Plus, in the spirit of corporate risk distribution, it always helps to have the government finance your good works so you can come home and tell the flock how wonderful they are to be a member of such a wonderful religion and it doesn't cost them anything either. Everybody gets to feel good on the cheap because the government foots the bill, and the facilitators of those good feelings make out like bandits.

[cbayer]

21. This particular organization gets its funds and distributes them thusly

Fund sources:

40% private
27% governments and multilateral aid agencies (including USAID and the UK)
30% non profit programs

Distribution:

87% of aid programs
8% fundraising
5% management/overhead

And they don't permit proselytizing as part of the programs.

[rrneck]

23. Do they keep their activities a secret

from their members or the public at large?

[cbayer]

24. I would guess not. What difference does it make?

They fundraise from individuals in order to provide these services.

[rrneck]

25. USAID

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development

[cbayer]

26. Yes, they applied for grants from USAID and received funds.

There are no restrictions on who can apply for these grants.

So what?

[rrneck]

28. The First Amendment.

Religions aren't supposed to be supported by government. If they had any integrity they wouldn't apply or even be involved with those who do receive funds. Why do they need the imprimatur of the United States Government at all to do their good works? Why don't they just go over there and help people and proselytize away without those silly restrictions? What do they gain with those concessions?

Just guessing I'd say:

1. The protection of the State Department and the military.

2. The cachet of affiliation with organizations funded by the United States if not actual funding. That kind of PR works overseas as well as back home.

3. A foot in the door. Once a relationship is created, it can only grow. And even if this bunch does no more than this (which is too much), there are plenty of others willing to exploit that relationship to the hilt.

You don't bribe a politician to break the law. You bribe them to make your crimes legal. Support for any religious organization by USAID violates the spirit of the First Amendment. Just because some unscrupulous ass found a way to make it legal doesn't make it right. Imagine if we were having this conversation about federally funded mercenaries trained by the NRA. How would you feel about it then?

[cbayer]

29. Let me tell you a personal story.

On my first visit back to New Orleans after Katrina, the bulk of the rebuilding in the ninth ward was being done by religious groups and organizations. Virtually no one else was there.

They had raised most of their money privately, but some had applied for and received government grants to do some rebuilding.

When there are not secular organizations who are able or willing to step into hard places and do hard work, I find it unconscionable that we would prohibit these religious organizations from getting funds wherever they are available. They weren't using the funds to promote their religion. They were using them to help people who's lives had been decimated.

While I am a strong proponent of separation, I do not see this as falling under the first amendment. I spoke extensively with these people and came away believing their cause was righteous. They were driven by their beliefs, but not promoting them or benefitting in any way from the work they were doing.

There is a lot of grey area between that federally funded mercenaries. While I agree that oversight and regulation are needed to prevent some of the things you describe, until secular organizations step up to the plate and do these kinds of projects, I will continue to support them getting funding any way they can.

[rrneck]

32. If someone helped you out of a tough spot

would you remember them? Getting people to remember who you are and what you do is what advertising is all about. And nowadays getting the government to pick up the tab is good business.

In fact, one of the primary objectives of our political opponents is to "reduce the size of ineffective government". So W puts an idiot in charge of FEMA, a hurricane blows in, and private interests profit from the panic and confusion and look like heros doing it. That's disaster capitalism at its finest. Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein may prove to be one of the most important books of the twenty first century.

Now, am I saying that those good people that you talked to down there were exploiting that disaster for their own benefit? Of course not. When the shit hits the fan it's all hands on deck. That's how the game gets rigged, and secular organizations will never step up to the plate because they're the ones that did the rigging.

Any religious organization that offers to "partner" with government to do its good works is engaged in the same effort to, in the words of Grover Norquist, "Shrink government so it can be drowned in a bathtub". And I mean any of them, regardless of their good intentions. Business interests, controlled by the 1%, are trying to turn government into a profit making subsidiary. Any religious organization that participates is hastening its own demise. They are making concessions to stay in a game that's rigged against the principals they claim to embrace. That's how fascism wins.

And that's how you get one liberal to tell another liberal to not help people. You fix it so that we can't agree on what tools we are supposed to use to make this country work by dividing our loyalties among organizations with conflicting objectives.

Any organization that tells you they will help you run your government is probably full of shit and should be employed with the utmost skepticism. They, like government itself, should live in constant fear you will fire them for someone better. And that's not how religion works. In fact, it works just the opposite. But what religion can do is help make good people, who can then make good citizens.

If progressives want to save religion they need to find a way to do it without using the methods that are tearing our culture apart. That's what will make them truly progressive.

[skepticscott]

27. "Don't permit"?

You mean the way that public schools "don't permit" religious proselytizing at their functions? The way the military "doesn't permit" religious proselytizing to soldiers or cadets?

Exactly how do they "not permit" people working far beyond direct supervision and observation from doing any damn thing they think "god" or their "faith" demands of them? And if by chance they're caught and cut off from funding, from whining about their "religious freedom" being infringed upon?

[pinto]

30. Only 5% of funds to management / overhead is a great marker.

The "red flag" for many poorly run, shady agencies is that line item. When it's bloated, something's wrong. And 87% of funds going to aid programs is a good return on public / private support.

I do a bit of grant writing, those stats are good ones.

[cbayer]

31. That's what I thought as well.

I think this is a great example of secular/religious alliances that really have some success stories.