[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Churches as a whole do not benefit financially from these grants. Only their secular social programs can benefit, and those programs cannot be used for evangelical purposes. The only benefit to churches/mosques/synagogues is the actual spiritual benefit of helping other people.
There is no religious intent behind this at all. This is about the actual social services, not a religious agenda.
I’ve also been defending Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative for years (against the same kind of misunderstandings that you’ve shown), so there is no conversion for me in this.
[/QUOTE]
To the extent a church previously bore all the costs for its religious programs in addition to secular programs, if they are given public funds to be used in their secular programs, does that not ostensibly free up money to be used elsewhere - including their religious programs? Seems to me this is not an inconsequential benefit.
Tho I have not studied the programs under Bush, my understanding is that the lion’s share of F-BI grants went to a rather narrow range of protestant denominations. Which I see as a potential problem. Although I greatly distrust just about every aspect of the current administration, and would not be surprised if Obama’s administered F-BI grants more fairly than the current incumbent.
I tend to prefer separation between church and state whenever possible. So at first blush, this strikes me as perhaps the first of Obama’s proposals that I disagree with. Certainly not enough to push me into the McCain camp, of course.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
To the extent a church previously bore all the costs for its religious programs in addition to secular programs, if they are given public funds to be used in their secular programs, does that not ostensibly free up money to be used elsewhere - including their religious programs? Seems to me this is not an inconsequential benefit.
[/quote]
If a church is able to support a program without as government grant, it won’t get the grant.
I think it also needs to be understood that church’s are only being allowed to compete for grants, they are not being earmarked for them. The point is to fund needed social programs. If a program fulfills that need and promotes no religious agenda, then what difference does it make if it’s run by a church?
That has been a criticism of how Bush has implemented the program (and really, it’s practical effect jhas been little more than technical assistance – i.e. it encourages and teaches religious organizations to compete for grants, but it doesn’t make it any easier for them to get the grants), and Obama would try to be more encompassing and less Christo-centric. To be honest, though, not many churches have gotten any grants they wouldn’t have already gotten anyway.
Well, OK, suspicious but not alarmed. And it is undeniably true that many faith-centered, if not faith-based, groups have done the Lord’s work. But, so help me Og, if I see a dime of this going to a pus-bag like Hagee or a snake-oil salesman like Osteen, I’m going totally secular ballistic!
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Well, OK, suspicious but not alarmed. And it is undeniably true that many faith-centered, if not faith-based, groups have done the Lord’s work. But, so help me Og, if I see a dime of this going to a pus-bag like Hagee or a snake-oil salesman like Osteen, I’m going totally secular ballistic!
[/QUOTE]
Trust me, there are federal safeguards to keep guys like that from getting their hands on it. These programs are monitored by the feds, and every dime is audited. If Hagee wants to apply for a grant open a detox center or an after-school program, he can do that, but he gets the program funded, he can’t take a cent out of that program, he can’t discriminate in who gets served and he can’t preach at anybody. All he can do is just watch helplessly and eat his heart out as the program either does what the government pays it to do or gets stripped of its funding (and according to my wife who works closely with a lot of these programs, the feds can and have taken money away from programs which won’t follow the rules).
[QUOTE=Sinaijon]
Well, faith based social programs have always been more efficient.
[/quote]
Hardly; given the chance, they’ll divert everything to spreading the Word and ignore the needs of the people they are supposed to be helping. Or just divert all the money to the higher ups. As for “safeguards” against that behavior, I see no reason to trust them. This is the sort of country where people can get away with all sorts of disgusting behavior if they slap the religion label on it. The people who are supposed to be guarding against the abuses will generally look the other way because those abuses are being done in God’s name. Even the victims will often keep their mouth shut.
[QUOTE=Sinaijon]
Like Obama said, they are ground level, grass roots. Why not piggy back on that? Support what works, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Because America is supposed to have separation of Church and State. And because religion is extremely destructive. And because it can be done without bringing religion into it.
It does depend on where you’re coming from, and what you think of the candidate supporting it. While I’m not religious, I think there’s lots of faith-based charities that do a lot of good. But I’d be suspicious of right wing support of this type of policy because I think they’re really trying to get christianity’s nose under the tent (but not other faiths), so to speak. I’m not sure what to make of this type of policy coming from the left. It might just be electioneering. The altruist in me wants it to be good hearted pragmatism. The devil’s in the details (heh).
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You’ve never read any of my postings on the Faith-Based initiative, have you? Have you even read this thread? I don’t think you know much about this issue. It has nothing to do with “giving more money to black churches,” or giving money to any churches, as such. It goes to specific programs which may be run by religious organizations but which have to meet certain criteria in effectiveness and outcomes and which are forbidden to prosyletize or discriminate in services. Churches as a whole do not benefit financially from these grants. Only their secular social programs can benefit, and those programs cannot be used for evangelical purposes. The only benefit to churches/mosques/synagogues is the actual spiritual benefit of helping other people.
There is no religious intent behind this at all. This is about the actual social services, not a religious agenda.
I’ve also been defending Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative for years (against the same kind of misunderstandings that you’ve shown), so there is no conversion for me in this.
[/QUOTE]
Bull. Since the government is now giving the church money for its social programs, the church can now earmark more of its private donations to its religious agenda. The money that the church no longer needs to spend on social programs can now be spent any way they want. Indirectly, the government is now paying for the church’s religious agenda.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This is nothing to be alarmed about. It’s actually a good move both politically and practically. All it does is allow religious charities to compete with secular charities for government grants. By law, those religious charities cannot discriminate in services and cannot proselytize. They actually do provide good and useful services. This is not a scheme (like school vouchers) to funnel taxpayer money to churches to serve a theocratic agenda. It provides grants to the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities to set up food shelves and homeless shelters, treatment centers and halfway houses. It’s not insidious and the services are needed. It’s not about proselytizing or politcs, The grants actually go to help people.
This is not a radical departure for Obama, by the way. When he was a community organizer in Chicago, he sought out the aid of local churches as an integral strategy in rebuilding ravaged neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, when he first went to speak to Jeremiah Wright, it was to seek his help in community organizing efforts (something Wright was very involved in). He had no personal religious intent in seeking out Wright and wasn’t expecting to get converted.
As for the hiring standards – he’s only talking about jobs which do not involve taxpayer money. Churches do have a right to religious discrimination in hiring. That’s nothing to be alarmed about either.
[/QUOTE]
Really, they can’t proselytize? What’s prevent that realistically? Do people desperate for help complain about it much?
Either way, I’m relieved to know that. I don’t agree in principle but I know lot’s of churches offer very good services for the poor so it’s not a major issue for me.
[QUOTE=panache45]
Bull. Since the government is now giving the church money for its social programs, the church can now earmark more of its private donations to its religious agenda. The money that the church no longer needs to spend on social programs can now be spent any way they want. Indirectly, the government is now paying for the church’s religious agenda.
And my support for Obama has just diminished.
[/QUOTE]
For a number of reasons, this doesn’t really happen. For one thing, the program has to demonstrate that federal funding is needed to run a given program, for another thing, they still require matching funds from the recipeients and they are time limited (you have to constantly keep reapplying for and justifying the grants, it;s not indefinite), for another there is so much more hassle, restriction and oversight if a grant is awarded that most organizations don’t find it worthwhile if the can run the program without assistance.
Having said all that, even if we accept this stretch that funding secular programs somehow allows these chuches to expand their budgets for religious outreach (and I assure you, it does not), so what? The government money is still going to programs that are needed, that serve the community and which have no religious agenda. It’s programs that get funded, not the churches. It’s the communities that benefit, not the congregations.
Like I said, Obama enlisted churches in Chicago. What he wants to do with F-BI is make more grants available and provide more technical assistance to allow smaller organizations to compete for them, to move programs into more neighborhoods and to use the bigger charities to train the smaller charities.
By the way, it should probably be pointed out that secular organzations have the same right to compete for these grants as the churches do. If you can build a better summr day camp and run it better, you can get the money.
Not all Christians place that much emphasis on missionary work, or proselytizing. They hold to a principle of witnessing by action, of being Christian as the most sincere means to demonstrate grace. You may argue the validity of Christ by haranguing a hungry man about the mysteries of the Trinity, but feed him and you have demonstrated it.
[QUOTE=panache45]
Bull. Since the government is now giving the church money for its social programs, the church can now earmark more of its private donations to its religious agenda. The money that the church no longer needs to spend on social programs can now be spent any way they want. Indirectly, the government is now paying for the church’s religious agenda.
And my support for Obama has just diminished.
[/QUOTE]
You can fight this by starting a non religious program to help the needy.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Really, they can’t proselytize.
Ignorance fought. Glad to know it. So actually there was no problem with Bush’s promotion of this either?
[/QUOTE]
My wife says that the main problem with Bush was that he never really put any money where his mouth was with the grants. He never offered that much to compete for. It was all good in theory, but he never really came through with much cash. It was all just political window dressing for him.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You can fight this by starting a non religious program to help the needy.
[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of secular organizations that help people. Is Obama offering comparable levels of support to them . . . or is he afraid they might proselytize secularism?
[QUOTE=panache45]
or is he afraid they might proselytize secularism?
[/QUOTE]
I’m late to the thread and haven’t read it all yet, but I hope he is only sucking up to the religious right for votes. Christ I hate it when someone who makes rules and laws for me loves Jesus.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Hardly; given the chance, they’ll divert everything to spreading the Word and ignore the needs of the people they are supposed to be helping. Or just divert all the money to the higher ups. As for “safeguards” against that behavior, I see no reason to trust them. This is the sort of country where people can get away with all sorts of disgusting behavior if they slap the religion label on it. The people who are supposed to be guarding against the abuses will generally look the other way because those abuses are being done in God’s name. Even the victims will often keep their mouth shut.
[/QUOTE]
Y’know, ignorance is something that can be fought, but willfull igorance–based on personal prejudice–is much harder to overcome.
Catholic Charities may be the largest recipient in the country of government contracts to provide social services. They have held that position for decades. If your claim were true, there should be no problem discovering that all their alcohol and drug rehab, psychological counselling, single mother support, adoption processing, soup kitchens, women’s shelters, and other programs have been turned into little more than lecture halls for proselytizing.
Unless, of course, your negative fantasy is fueled more by your dystopian beliefs than by actual facts.
[QUOTE=panache45]
There are plenty of secular organizations that help people. Is Obama offering comparable levels of support to them . . . or is he afraid they might proselytize secularism?
[/QUOTE]
If I’m understanding it correctly, federal funds were already going to non faith based charities and now they are included in those eligible for funds.
ftr, I support the separation of church and state and I am not too fond of this idea myself but more and more in this election cycle I see the difference between having certain ideological principles, and dealing with the reality of where we are right now.
Although I am not a big fan of organized religion I do know that millions of people are helped by religious folks who, through their church, give of their time and money to reach out to those in need. I’m certain it won’t be a perfect system but if the money is for groups already in the trenches trying to do something real and positive so they can be more effective and help more people that positive outreach helps us all. If that means they have more of their own money for the building fund or to broadcast their Sunday services I’ll live with that as a consequence.
It may be that working with faith based groups will be more net positive for all concerned.