why are we against faith base initiatives?

[Senator Lamb]

I dont know too much about the issue. enlighten me someone.

[realisticphish]

1. because

it is almost impossible to guarentee equal funding. the idea is that faith based initiatives could be used to favor a certain religion over the others. at least thats what i gather :shrug:


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[RandomKoolzip]

2. Anything that makes church and state seem one entity

is something that makes me extrememly uncomfortable. I don't like the idea of the gubmint pawning off their responsibilities to the poor on the churches, who in turn promote one single religion (fundamentalism) and don't get taxed in the process. Something about it just kinda stinks.

Most European countries are quite happy with their welfare states; why do we always see ours as a problem?

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Our welfare program was a problem for Republicans because

of racism. By taking the money away from programs that helped minority groups objectively, they are continuing the politics of segregation by allowing the churches to decide who they want to help within the community.

[notadmblnd]

18. or the possibility that any assistance one might recieve....

could depend on whether or not one shows up for sunday services.

[floridadem30]

24. My thoughts exactly

[RafterMan]

39. Because we're not Europeans?

[RandomKoolzip]

58. What does that have to do with anything?

We're not giraffes either. So what?

[RafterMan]

61. It was in reply to

"Most European countries are quite happy with their welfare states; why do we always see ours as a problem?"

I do agree, though, that we are not giraffes.

[Leilani]

3. I don't like tax dollars

going to fund churches.

[DenverDem]

4. Why should tax money fund fundigelical prosteletizing?

It's merely a croniest pay off to sun myong moon and other radical clerics for their propagandistic support of the busholini gang.

[tk2kewl]

5. See The Lemon Test

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm

[jbm]

6. I always get an image of the scenes from "Angelas Ashes"..

where the poor have to explain to the church why they 'deserve' to be helped, and the church gets to pass judgement on whether they're truly deserving or not. Imagine the church people that are going to volunteer to sit in judgement of the poor..confident that they are doing the work of God, yet to small minded to understand that voting for Bush is not the pathway to heaven. I'm getting chills just thinking about it!!!

[The Doctor.]

7. Oh no... I'm all for the F.B.I.

You see, it gives us the opportunity to exploit those hypocrites.
The 'Faith Based Initiative' is supposed to be the routing of federal funds to religious organizations who provide community service.

In order for this measure to be constitutional- funds must be awarded to ANY religious organization that provides said services.

Here's where it gets fun;

I'm hoping to start a Religious foundation whose main purpose is to provide community services, you know;

Feed the hungry,

Shelter the homeless,

Teach battered women to hide the bodies of their abusive partners...

You know, typical community service stuff.

And the name of my Religious Organization?

"The First United Church of SATAN"
(Big red letters and all.)

Then watch the hypocrites come out of the woodwork.
It'll be GREAT!

Who's with me?

[notadmblnd]

19. I think you should apply for a grant ASAP

nt

[ntwkgirl]

36. Now you're thinking!!!

See, we have to get all slimy (but not really) just like the Republicans and beat them at their own game. I am all about supporting your religion...'bout time people turn some tables!!

[newyawker99]

51. Hi ntwkgirl!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lu Kang]

79. Unfortunately

Once bush is done packing the courts it will be ruled perfectly constitutional for "christian" organizations ONLY to get funds.

[genieroze]

88. Ouch!

:wow:

Then again B*sh is a Moonie

http://www.perkel.com/politics/moonies/bush.htm :eyes:

[melnjones]

8. I wouldn't mind...

faith-based funding IF it could be shown that...
1. No single religion or set of beliefs was favored
2. Money went toward programming that helps solve some societal problem (hunger, housing, education, etc.) and not specifically evangelizing
3. Money that would then be allowed to faith-based organizations didn't come from the pot of money that already was in use, taking needed money away from pre-established non-faith-based organizations.

There really ARE some great faith-based organizations who would make good use of added funds from the government, but yeah, I'd still have some concerns. Separation of church and state is always tricky.

[ThorsHammer]

15. Well said, more or less what I think as well (n/t)

[Vincardog]

69. The only religion getting any FBI money are aWoL's church n/t

[seabeyond]

9. one of the abuses already

in using the charities and handing to people, the church goers are telling the receivers they have to accept religion. to demand this from a person thru the arm of our government is unconstitution.

it is inherent to abuse in so many ways

seperation of church and state. simplified

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Impossible to regulate.

Churches, and in general private organizations, are impossible to regulate. They don't keep good paperwork, they co-mingle money, they are not forthright with public records requests even though they are subject to the laws because they're using federal money.

Then there's the problem that we shouldn't be selective about which poor people we should be helping. If the people running the churches see the poor as "welfare queens" will they exploit the situation to their advantage? i.e. requiring them to work (off the clock) for food, expecting them to accept their religious beliefs for food, and, excluding/discriminating against the very people the money should be helping.

And now that churches have shown to be politically saavy, they're not above being suspect of laundrying money for Republican political causes.

[AndyTiedye]

11. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

If the government sponsors religious activities, it is likely to
violate the above clause of the 1st Amendment.

That's why.

[Trillo]

29. Why would the Bill of Rights authors think it so necessary

to keep religion free of government legislation?

Looking at the definition of 'religion', I read that it has to do with the structuring of beliefs that exist within the minds of individuals. The word "faith" appears, providing the logical connection to "faith-based".

Why shouldn't government tell individuals what to believe?

"Consent of the governed"?

[EnfantTerrible]

34. "Why would the Bill of Rights authors think it so necessary...

to keep religion free of government legislation?"

Perhaps because it that kind of system that they were fleeing and therefore knew of what they spoke.

[AndyTiedye]

35. Because They Knew The Consequences of Having a State Religion

> Why would the Bill of Rights authors think it so necessary
> to keep religion free of government legislation?

Because they had already had bad experiences with the mixing of
religion and government. Many of them had fled England to get
away from the established church there, only to have to pull up
stakes again over religious differences with the colonial government.
The colonies that THOSE colonists founded all guaranteed religious
freedom, because nobody wanted to have to move again, and their
decendents pushed hard for the same protections in the Bill of Rights.

> Looking at the definition of 'religion', I read that it has to do
> with the structuring of beliefs that exist within the minds of
> individuals.

They are not so individual if they are imposed by governmental fiat.

> The word "faith" appears, providing the logical connection to "faith-based".

Then it is an overly restrictive definition, but that is beside the point.

> Why shouldn't government tell individuals what to believe?

If we permit them to do that, what freedom do we have left?

> "Consent of the governed"?

It would be the ultimate in 'manufacturing consent' as Noam Chomski
would say, if the government is permitted to simply indoctrinate
everybody into supporting its policies.

[jobendorfer]

56. it was more than escaping the Church of England

Remember, the writers of the American Constitution could
also look at then-recent European history: the Reformation
and Counter-Reformation spawned bloody, nasty wars from
end of the continent to the other.

Look at the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Northern Ireland
today. Neighbor against neighbor, neighborhood against
neighborhood -- nasty.

The history of these things is that one religious viewpoint
gains political control and attempts to stamp out the others,
often "with extreme prejudice." Eventually, followers of the
minority viewpoints get backed into a corner and the shooting
starts. And this goes on and on, back and forth, until one
day a critical mass wakes up and says, "You know? Every time
we put religious nutcases in charge of the government, every-
thing goes to hell. Let's not do that any more and just leave
each other alone."

Rough translation of amendment 1.

J.

[Vincardog]

70. The founders wanted to keep Government FREE of Religion

look at Afghanistan or Iran to see what happens when RELIGION controls GOVERNMENT. Do you want to Worship at the Church of BUSH?
HELL NO NOT FOR ME

[WithStamina]

12. Personally not against

I am for faith-based initiative if, and only if, they are treated solely at other secular charities are, with no regard to their denomination whatsoever. Why exclude them from the government? Separation of church and state:

1) isn't in the Constitution (although I agree with it)
2) does not imply that the government can't do business with religious organizations

[The Doctor.]

16. Yep - Money for Satanists too.....

Love to hear Jerry Falwell on that one.

[melnjones]

23. Not a fan of satan...

but it WOULD be funny to watch Falwell:-) Add Pat Robertson to the list too...

[RandomKoolzip]

22. If the government is going to "do business" with religious

organizations, then those organizations ought not to be tax exempt and sacrosanct to the IRS.

And "doing business" ala Enron is not the image I think I ought to have in my head when thinking about God. I'm an atheist, but I do seem to remember that the G-man had dropped some science about "greed" and the "root of all evil" on his peeps.

As for it not being in the constitution, there's a post above yours that provides a relevant quote.

[Cheswick2.0]

45. it is unamerican

the Founders were very clear that we should not be "doing business" with religion. Have your forgotten European History?

State and Church doing business corrupts both.

[LiberalFighter]

57. I'm for faith-based initiatives...

as long as it is directly funded completely by the members of the church running the mission.

What secular charities are funded by the federal government?

[journalist3072]

14. Faith Based Initiatives

Well for me, I have 2 main problems with faith based initiatives:

1. When a Church accepts federal dollars, I worry that the government will feel free to tell to tell a Church how they should be run. I feel the government will tell the Church what they should and should not do.

2. I worry that the federal government will use faith based initiatives to cut back on government run social programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. I fear they will say "Well we've funded all these faith based initiatives to help people. We've met our obligation. Now we can cut back on other programs and give more tax cuts to the rich."

So those are my 2 main concerns with faith based initiatives.

[senaca]

30. follow the money

It would be interesting to see where the money for faith based initiatives came from. What govt programs had money siphoned from them to make faith based initiatives possible. What religious organizations got the lions share of the money? One concern I have is that faith based initiatives could be or become a shell game to have the money funneled back into a political parties political campaign.
Falwell, Robertson and Dobson come to mind. It seems that they are more concerned with political lobbying than seeing that most of the money received goes to the poor.

This is indeed an interesting topic after Thanksgiving. The Pilgrim's fled to America to escape religious persecution. Persecution among different sects of Christianity is common in history and is present in countries today. Wasn't this what our forefathers were trying to avoid when they wanted separation of Church and State?

[newyawker99]

52. Hi senaca!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AllegroRondo]

55. The Churches don't get it - yet

We really need to push your point number 1 to the churches - that the government will start to tell them what to do in order to keep getting money.

Look at the case before the Supreme court today about Army recruiting on campuses. 10 years ago Congress passed a law that said if colleges want to keep getting federal money, they had to allow recruiters on campus. What will the churches do if a similar law is passed for them?

[yellowdogintexas]

17. I belong to a church that could benefit greatly from the

so called Faith Based Initiatives

We have a mission which distributes food, clothing and infant formula to those in need.

We provide new uniform and shoes for 2000 needy kids for the new school year.

We feed lunch to homeless/shelter/street people during Christmas and Easter seasons.

and many other things.

As a large downtown church, we see our mission as the inner city that surrounds our campus, and we don't make any judgment calls about the recipients. We don't care if they are Christian or atheist, just that they need it.

Having said all that I don't want the gubmint having any say at all in who we serve or how we do it. I don't want our financial people to have to take the time to track those funds and keep the separate books they would have to keep for the federal funds (our church would definitely keep separate budget for it, if we received it). I don't want us beholden to Shrub in any fashion. Or any other government entity.


They wouldn't like us anyway, we support AIDS interfaith ministry, and the Samaritan Center and other such things.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. You brought up a good point. This Faith based initiative is a

Trojan Horse. First they'll approve it, then they'll attach strings to the money, like: Organizations qualify as long as none of their programs include: free contraceptives, support of abortion; free needle exchange programs. Before you know it, the only churches that will qualify will be the evangelicals.

Geez, why didn't I see it before? It's going to turn into a laundry money program for Republican causes.

[FlaGranny]

43. It sounds like your church does many

worthwhile things, but I wonder if that will be the criteria for receiving federal funds. They might consider the AIDS ministry and Samaritan Center very "unworthy."

[IndianaGreen]

21. The Earth is only 5,000 years old

and the entire universe was created in 6 literal days. Now our faith demands that we insist on putting warning labels on every science textbook to alert children that GAWD created everything. We must also insist that history classes teach that GAWD established America as a Christian nation, and that we don't give a hoot about unbelievers.

Long live faith based (fill-in the blank).

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

25. Why don't we call it "religious" rather than "faith based"?

It seems a lot more honest to call it what it is: an effort to shift traditional government programs to religious organizations.

Specifically, religious organizations that are approved of by the president.

Specifically, religious organizations that will ensure continued support for the current regieme.

You want to get welfare benefits? Gotta believe in Jesus first.

Amen, brother.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Somehow "faith based stoning of adulterers" sounds better

than saying "religious mob murders woman that had a child out of wedlock."

[Quill Pen]

64. "Faith-based" is one of those...

...extensively focus-group-shopped terms that comes from the Repug advertising psychology consultants.

These guys have figured out that a lot of Americans are (somewhat justifiably, I'll admit) suspicious of anything labeled "religious."

[usregimechange]

26. No discrimination and indoctrination with my tax $ nt

[JohnKleeb]

27. It's a good intentioned idea

but it violates seperation of church and state.

[pop goes the weasel]

28. why should I be forced to support

the outreach programs of organizations that would never hire me? Oh, sure, they might be willing to provide assistance to me should I need it, but I prefer to be able to work for a living. My tax money should not go to support organizations that get a pass on discrimination based on creed, color, gender or sexual orientation.

[napi21]

31. Believe me, there are lots of fundie orgs that don't want the funding.

My cousin is a re-born evangelical and a professional psychologist with his own practice. His wife is a volunteer for a fundie org. Both of them are very much against faith based initiatives, and would refuse any money. I asked why? Their response was that to accept Govt funds would mean they would have to follow certain govt imposed rules, and they don't want that.

Both also voted for Kerry! They said they think shrub is "literally" insane! I must admit, I took some comfort hearing that from this psychologist. I thought it all along, but to hear it from a professionl convinces me that we're not all nuts!!!

[robbedvoter]

32. The Constitution.

[Senator Lamb]

33. another question

does John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill/Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, or Barak Obama support faith base inititavies?

[Merlin]

37. Are we doing a bit of opposition research here?

Just wondering.

Nice dreidle. I like the stylitic "W" and the abstract sense that it is a hand giving the middle finger.

[salin]

38. several issues of concern:

some charities receiving money only give services IF the recipient undergo their religious indoctrination (takes different forms) - which grows as a problem when it is the ONLY service available... moves into the state providing services (through funding) that directly promotes a particular religious doctrine.

also, a breakdown on where the money flows shows cronism of a sort - certain groups get tons of money and few non-christian groups receive funding (again - a sort of seeming state intervention to promote a particular religious doctrine?)

third, concern that the services, that are still administered privately, will discriminate in the delivery of services - leaving some people without access to services.

[quaker bill]

40. I am only against government funding them

Otherwise, I like faith based initiatives just fine.

[Q]

41. Hmmm...a thread in which the author doesn't give his own opinion?

The obvious answer to your query: why not do your own research and then start a thread in which you can actually participate?

[noonwitch]

42. There are ways to do it that don't violate separation of church and state

That's not what Bush was proposing, however.

For decades, church-run agencies like Lutheran Child and Family Services, Catholic Social Services, etc., have been providing foster care services for which the states pay them. They have rules spelled out in their contracts that they are not to interfere with the religious practices of the clients, although clients are free to voluntarily participate. It is also spelled out that they can't interfere with someone's use of contraception, and they are not allowed to discriminate against people for any legal reason.

The same can be done for jobs-training programs, or any other social service program. An organization that wishes to preach to their recipients is free to refuse government money, and some would. I suspect the Salvation Army would.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. Not the initiatives themselves, but government funding of

programs that may require people seeking help to take religious instruction or attend services.

That's what a lot of the fundamentalist programs involve. I used to work with homeless youth, and the listings of services for the poor and homeless in Portland showed that some (not all, mostly the fundementalists) of the "faith-based" programs required people to attend a prayer service before they could eat. Now if programs want to have that requirement and people are willing to go along with it, that's fine, but such programs should not be government funded.

In fact, one thing that Republicanites dislike about government-sponsored welfare programs is that they believe that they don't do anything to stem "immorality."

Also, the mainstream Protestant denominations are wary of this Republicanite initiative, because they believe that getting funding from the government will lead to the government trying to control them.

For example, my church has a meal program for street youth, and like all charities, it's constantly looking for funds. Now suppose a Republicanite administration came in and said, "We'll fund your program for homeless youth. No strings attached." Okay, but then suppose a couple of years later, after the program had become accustomed to government funding, the government came back and said, "Continued funding is contingent on your preaching to gay street youth on 'the evils of homosexuality' and giving all of them abstinence education."

[elehhhhna]

46. faith based troll-a-rama in aisle 5!

[democratreformed]

48. Here is why I am against faith-based initiatives.

IMO, they allow churches to take our tax dollars and misuse them. I have actually seen this in action. This is just one example.

One church "leader" uses government money to buy old dilapidated houses. He pays his relatives (who conveniently have a residential building company) to go in and remodel the houses. He then puts them on the market to "poor" people who can come up with a down payment. The people who buy the houses are overjoyed that they have the opportunity to own their own homes (owner financed, of course). When those people get into trouble, they lose those homes and the money they have paid, of course. And, they get to sell the damn thing over and over again.

Other things that concern me - They get to build new buildings, etc. at our expense under the guise of "community programs". For example, one fast-growing church here runs a drug program to combat the meth problem in our area. The thing is that, during the past three years, the meth problem has only intesified - not gotten better - even though their program has existed for that long.

Then, of course, there is the danger of the "captive political audience". Many of them absolutely adore the new conservatives because they have made all this money available to them. And, they make no secret about it. And, it DOES have an effect on their congregants.

Personally, I believe that our social policies are much worse off being handled by "faith-based" people - simply because that it has been my experience that they care more about themselves than the people they are supposed to be helping.

[fiorello]

49. It's a republican trick. Religious charities always could be funded.

Groups like Catholic Charities and other denominational organizations have always been eligible for federal tax money. They just needed some organizational difference between the charity or action organization and the church itself.

Bush's initiative was to allow churches to be funded directly.

What's the difference?
(1) It breaks down the wall between church and state to have direct government funding of churches.

(2) It makes it very easy - almost inevitable - for churches to use government money to promote their church - because there is no separation between the funded activity and the general church activity.

[The Flaming Red Head]

50. Preys the Lord

Didn't Jesus drive the money changers from the temple.

[greenohio]

53. I think you will find a mixture of opinions here.

It all depends on how they are implemented and what you mean by them. Providing money for salvation army, red cross, and the ymca appear to be models that work.

[Malva Zebrina]

67. The Salvation Army used tax paryer money for lobbying purposes

to lobby congress to declare that they, as a religious organisation, did not have to comply with the law. They discriminate against gays in their hiring procedures and are geetting taxpayer money to do this now legally.

This goes against everything we are against as far as equality under the law goes with federal money.

That is a perfect example of how government will control religion if faith based money is used extensively.

Not to mention the cronyism that will go on.

Giving money to churches, will free up the money they currently have, that can be and will be used for other things, such as missions.

Why should a Muslim, a Wiccan, a Buddhist or an atheist be required to give money to a religion that discriminates in it's hiring prodedures, or that sends people to far off countries to convert and take over the beliefs of third world countries to convert them to Christianity?

[greenohio]

75. Every organization that received money lobbies.

Planned Parenthood, NEA, PBS, though not "faith based" all lobby. Some people do not agree with the values espoused by those organizations either, but we fund them because we find value in their contributions. If you are going to pick on religious institutions because they lobby or have a set of values, you are going to have to ban funding on lots of stuff. Just be consistent. If you have values that some taxpayers disagree with, then you don't get funding (which would be just about everything.)

[MountainLaurel]

91. Not picking because they lobby

But what they lobbied for: to break the law.

[Beacho]

54. puts governement into the business of deciding..

....what is and is not a religion. Very bad precedent

Definite violation of the first amendment and the fundemental reason that it was put into the Bill Of Rights

[billyskank]

59. Because it's Bush's way of cutting government programs

you know, shrink it to the size where you can drown it in the bathtub, remember? Apart from the military budget, of course.

[GOPBasher]

60. Separation of Church and State. Here's one problem:

There are many problems with this breach of the separation of church and state, but here's just one of them. Where do you draw the line between what's a "religion" and what's not? What if they (our Republican leaders) decide to give money to "faith-based" institutions, but start deciding what are and what aren't religions. I can see them saying, "Unitarian is not a religion, and neither is Pagan, etc." Then they'll take out the easters religions, Hindu, Buddhism. Basically, I don't think they'd want to give money to any religion besides Christianity.

And none of this should matter, anyway. Because our tax dollars simply should NOT go to any religious institution.

[cyberpj]

62. Tax Free Religious orgs should not get our Tax Dollars!

PERIOD.

I'm all for Organized Religions to start paying taxes though!

ALL FOR IT.

ps - Interesting that the IRS is now investigating NAACP because NAACP spoke against Bush -- IRS says NAACP may lose it's tax exempt status.

Why are "faith based initiatives" losing their tax examp status!?

[Terran]

63. Do any of you actually know how federal grants work?

Because I have seen so many factual errors and unwarranted assumptions in this thread, it's absurd.

I have been working off a federal HUD grant for two years and have become very familiar with the process of HUD funding and how it is monitored. I assume that all federal agencies grant and monitor their funds in more or less the same way.

I work with numerous "faith-based" organizations who receive HUD funds to conduct homelessness assistance activities: emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, drop-in service centers, you name it. And you guys are ALL missing several significant aspects of how these services work and what the Faith-Based Initiative (FBI) is. The FBI did NOT make available any funds exclusively to religious organizations; so it didn't "siphon off" any funds, other than its own operating costs, from any social programs, as someone suggested. The FBI is meant to encourage more faith-based agencies to apply for existing funding, because as another person pointed out, there is a fear that if they take federal funds, these organizations will be told what to do by the government. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL SPECIAL FUNDING AVAILABLE for faith-based agencies; they have ALWAYS been able to apply for these funds, and that has not changed. What has changed is the feds are now actively seeking their application for funds.

And of course, it IS true that the federal government does tell faith-based organziations what they can and cannot do once they accept federal funds. HUD regulations clearly prohibit grant recipients from proselytizing their clients, and they cannot make aid contingent upon 'accepting Jesus' or any similar nonsense. Now in the case of emergency shelters, some few might get away with delivering a sermon to the folks while they eat their dinner, but otherwise, HUD watches this stuff very closely. None of you know, evidently, that HUD does frequent audits of funds spent; yearly reports are required by grant recipients; and HUD funds must be tracked separately from other funds. If a grant recipient abuses these requirements, they are forced to return the money. The flow of money to grantees is the same, regardless of the nature of the grantee. So it's really not a violation of church and state; the government goes through a stringent process to select who gets funded (in HUD's case it's even a nationwide competition), and all grantees have to follow the same rules. It's not a case of 'doing business' with churches; it's a case of finding organizations who are willing to do the work to provide desperately needed services, because of course the government won't do that itself.

Now, I am not a Christian. But I have seen the immense contribution that religious organizations make in the field of helping the homeless. And trust me, if we stopped giving them all the funding they get now, things would be much much worse for poor people and for the homeless, because these organizations, from big ones like Catholic Charities to small mom-and-pop agencies that just work with a single rural county, do enormous good. Are there some that manage to abuse the system? Well, consider ing how many such agencies there are in this country, yes, that's likely. But the anecdote about the person who refurbished homes for poor buyers didn't make any sense to me, because the government got what it wanted out that money: the addition of much needed affordable hosuing to the local housing supply. Now if buyers were getting suckered into a situation they couldn't handle financially, that's a problem. But any housing advocate will say it's a good thing that some affordable housing got built, and I don't see how any federal funding was abused there.

So I suggest some of you (most of you, in fact) educate yourselves better on this subject before you go maiking such ignorant comments about it.

[Quill Pen]

65. Sorry, but you're not entirely correct.

And some of the other posters in this thread who have expressed concerns about FBI protections of the separation of church and state are justified in their suspicions.

NOW/Bill Moyers devoted a segment to FBI last year:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/churchandstate2.html

The Clinton administration actually passed the 1996 law allowing religious orgs to receive federal funds, and relaxing some of the prohibitions against proselytizing and expressing their "church character." Sponsored by Senator John Ashcroft, of course. Bushco has gone them one better by adding faith-based departments to seven cabinet offices.

The story NOW told in which to frame FBI controversies was actually a prime example of FBI abuse, though anecdotal. A poverty-line single mother received some financial and job-placement aid from a faith-based org. Part of the org's M/O was to assign a family from their affiliated church to be her "mentors." The family assigned to her was your basic stereotypical, smug, suburban McChurch nightmare. Prim, waspy and subtly judgmental, they did indeed pressure her and her children to go to church. To every polite excuse she gave in an attempt to graciously decline their invitations to church, they'd counter with a solution and more pressure. "Oh, your car isn't working? We're so sorry to hear that. We'll pick you up, Sunday morning, how about that?" "Oh, you've got to work Sunday? No problem, there's a Bible study Wednesday nights!" The most nauseating pressure was directed at the woman's children: "Hey, do you want to come with us to church and have a good time, meet other kids and play?" The woman eventually capitulated and went to church a couple of times. When she stopped going, the churchy couple came back, smugly sniffing about the great opportunity that she was depriving her kids, as if not sending them along to church with them was child abuse. The whole story was disturbing and sickening.

[Terran]

66. Well, as I said,

I'm only familair with HUD's rules regarding proselytizing, and they are quite explicit--it cannot be done. Believe me, it's an issue that's been discussed a lot among people I work with, both on the HUD side and on the faith-based side. And frankly, I'm not too concerned about about the display of religious icons in places where the homeless are being helped, and I doubt they are either. The anecdote you described would be forbidden under HUD's rules.

Also, based on my experience with faith-based orgs here, most of them are too busy trying to provide their services and cope with need to put a lot of energy into trying to convert people.

I'm not saying there's no cause for concern. All I'm saying, there is a lot of misunderstanding about how these things work.

[WyLoochka]

80. You are citing the way HUD

has operated up until BushCo. The driving idea behind FBI is to do away with the restrictions on proselytizing entirely. It is about getting into peoples' heads with Fundie dogma when they are at very vulnerable points in their lives. In other words, it's ultimately ALL about brainwashing - and thereby capturing even more "values" votes for the Fundie-Anarcho Capitalist axis of evil.

As has been pointed out by you and many others, federal funding has long been available to religious charities so long as they do not discriminate, proselytize or coerce. Plenty of organizations have done very fine work within this framework, unbegrudgingly I might add.

We have to look at WHO is pushing for abolishing restrictions prohibiting proselytizing, coercion and discrimination. Surprise, surprise - it's those damn Fundies again.

The system is not broken, so we sure as hell do not need a Fundie fix.

edit - inserted word for clarification

[primavera]

74. Which is why a lot of churches don't want the funding

I worked for a while in refugee resettlement for the Catholic Church (no, I'm not Catholic) and was not surprised to find that many parishes were reluctant to be drawn into the FBI stuff, as they perceived that their mission was a spiritual one, not to replace government services the government has simply grown tired of having to deal with themselves and want to foist off on to somebody else.

[Malva Zebrina]

71. So because they do good in the community, they deserve federal money?

Come one. There are plenty of good doers out there. It is the mission of churches to do good. The Vatican has a special room in which they feed the hungry, the poor, and the homeless every day and they fund it with their enormous money without any government welfare.

So because churces are doing what is mandated for them to do according to their religion, they deserve tax payer money to do this? They are, being, essintially, put on welfare, and using the money of the people to teach a religion, or to essentially put the peole who are desperate, under their thumb? Just because they "do good" as they always have?

If I were a desperate person, starving, without a home, and had to go to the church for food, I would certainly cower to them and say anything they wanted me to--even though I am an athiest, I would certainly let it be known that I would pray to their god, if it meant my survival and that of my family. I would lie in order to survive and to have my children survive and that is what will happen.
Which forces some people into a sorry state that they do not want to be in, but must be in that uncomfortable place in order to eat.

Is that moral?

[cattleman22]

68. Wrong question

The problem is that any private organizations are receiving government moneys. I think that if any private organization can apply for government grants, then all must be able to apply, regardless of religious affiliation. This really bothers many on the right because it seems like the government had offered these grants to private organizations but then put up a little sign saying "Christians need not apply."

[Kathy in Cambridge]

78. My tax money pays for those religious bigots to discriminate

and to preach politics from the pulpit. Why should my money go towards faith-based initiatives that discriminate against women, minorities, and gays? If it's public money, they should be beholden to the same laws.

[WyLoochka]

81. You are mistaken

Christian organizations have long been able to apply and many have received funding.

The little sign that went up is "Proselytizers who discriminate and seek to brainwash may apply, but they won't get the funds." And that is exactly how it should be.

[cattleman22]

82. My mistake then

I had been under the impression that all religious groups were denied federal grants. So before Bush, any religious organization could apply for and receive grants as long as they did not use the funds for preaching?

[WyLoochka]

85. Yes - for decades

As has been mentioned here, organizations such as Catholic Charities and Jewish Community Centers, as well as other "mainline" religious organizations have long received federal funding. But they have not used the funds to proselytize or discriminate.

It's the Fundies, as usual, who want to change the rules. They want to use federal funding to brainwash vulnerable people. That is their "mission" - converts. Their "mission" is not to help people in their time of need ie to be "Christlike." They think just helping is a waste of an opportunity to brainwash.

They want to use your hard earned money to swell their ranks. Say no to the Fundies - keep the funding rules just as they have been. There is not one valid reason to change them.

[cattleman22]

86. Should any religious groups receive federal funding?

From reading some of the posts, it seems that many here oppose any federal money going to any relgious affiliated groups whatsoever.

Anyway, thank you for correcting my false understanding on this issue.

[melnjones]

90. no

I've worked in faith-based organizations that have NOT been able to apply for federal grants or aid. Maybe some can for some reason, but I know of shelters (who do NOT have the goal of brainwashing, converting, whatever you want to call it) who receive no federal funds, and because of that are struggling. Sad thing is that one of these shelters, a transitional living program for homeless women and children, provides excellent services and has a lot of success in making positive changes in people's lives...more so than many non-faith-based shelters in the area. This shelter has a program that women go through that includes a bible study once a week. Being open to Christianity is NOT a prerequisite for admission to the program. They have a pretty basic Bible study but in a non-judgmental setting. No confession of Christianity is pressured during or after the program. Programs in other shelters or centers have requirements as well...some have a curfew, some have mandatory psychotherapy, some have mandatory 12-step meetings, etc. They have these programs because they believe them to be helpful to the clients. Someone may be totally against participating in those things, even for moral or personal reasons, but those establishments have the right to create their programs. Surely there are SOME faith-based organizations who exploit the needy, demand confessions of faith, whatever. There was a good example of one above. I myself am a victim of spiritual abuse in a church setting, and I've had a lot to deal with from that. However, to act as though all or even the majority of faith-based organizations are only out to "brainwash" is ignorant and, quite frankly, false. I can completely understand people's concerns over FBI, and I have many myself. I do get quite frustrated though when people generalize like this.

By the way, I've also worked in non-faith-based social service organizations. Some of them are absolutely awful. They misuse funds, OUR tax dollars. They end up damaging clients more than healing them. I have horror stories I could tell. These services are COMPLETELY funded by taxes. Yes, I have many concerns about FBI. Separation of church and state is imperative and also tricky at times. However, I also want my tax money to go toward something that is effective. It's a tough call requiring a lot of debate, for which ignorance and generalizations are not helpful.

[crasmane]

72. I'm against faith-based initiatives because,

As social policy, they serve only religous communities and therefore not the entire society.
The government was formed to serve the entire society, not just those of a certain religion or to serve religious people and neglect those who are secular in outlook and in communal relationships.
The aims of religious institutions are non-democratic and non-republican.
The aims of government must be democratic and republican.
The government is secularly derived. Its objectives differ from those of religion.
Religious organizations are not democratic organizations, nor are they republican, even though they may be run mostly by the laity.
Different objectives, different structures, religious and governmental institutions are like apples and oranges. To support faith-based initiatives is to pull money and services away from the public, to in effect, defeat the purpose of government, promoting the general welfare.

[T Town Jake]

73. Short answer: they blur what should be a bright, clearly...

...marked line between Church & State.

[Aristus]

76. I'm a Christian, and I oppose faith-based initiatives because

of the desire of right-wing fundies to proselytize to people they are ostensibly trying to help. I think it's just wrong to preach to some cold hungry person before he can have a meal. Jesus NEVER said to the poor, hungry and despairing "All this I will give you if you only fall down and worship me."

Now, don't get me wrong, those words ARE uttered in the New Testament. But not by Jesus. In fact, they were spoken by...let's see...it was...SATAN!

So there you go. Faith-based initiatives are the devil's work. If "churches" want to do that kind of thing, they should do it without Federal funding.

[XemaSab]

77. Seems like

a potential slippery slope to me.

Any time the republicans start trying to form a private parallel channel to an existing service, I get suspicious.

It seems like the same basic sketchy idea as school vouchers, or privatizing social security: taking taxpayer money and using it to pay private entities (churches, private schools, Merrill Lynch) to provide a service the government is or should already be providing.

They do this under the argument that the government isn't providing these services effectively enough. When we all know that if they had their druthers, there would be no welfare, free public education, or social security.

That and the whole establishment clause thing...

[chelsea0011]

83. Sheep in wolves clothing

This is a step 1 plan to instill religion into all our waking lives.

[President Jesus]

84. no oversight, no standardization of services

forget the whole church and state argument (as valid as it is, it just causes culture wariors to dig in their heels). It is very hard to argue that sending money to tens of thousands of independent organizations in order to get a job done is not the most ridiculous waste of money imaginable.

Along these lines, why don't we abolish the Pentagon in favor of funding a million seperate neighborhood militias for our national defence?

[melnjones]

89. Just because

an organization is big doesn't make it effective. Just because many small organizations exist in the same area doesn't make them ineffective. That line of reasoning by itself makes no sense when you're talking about social services.

[cyn2]

87. No Jewish orgs have gotten any funds

Heard yesterday on the Al Franken show. They MAY have said ALL funds went to Christian orgs--but I don't remember exact quote.