Then you favor discrimination on the basis of belief?
Here’s the point: if the object is to get government-surplus food into the hands of those with a very low income, it doesn’t matter what organization does it, so long as they do what the program calls for, and without strings.
The local churches, individually or jointly, are more likely to have food pantries with experience at ensuring it gets where it’;s needed, does not fall into the hands of scam artists, and word-of-mouth reputation as a place where you can get help. Most of the civic and social clubs (Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions) and special-interest support organizations (Boy Scouts, women’s shelters) do not have this sort of expertise and reputation.
I won’t deny that a prime Bush Administration motive is to curry support among the religious conservatives. But the idea of using existing outreaches run by faith groups for charitable purposes to economically and efficiently ensure maximum benefit from government grants-in-aid, makes sense.
You do understand that in accepting federal or state funds the local church group agrees not to discriminate in any way between its own believers and others, to keep any evangelism completely separate from the government-funded program, etc.?
No, less likely to steal or otherwise waste the money than a religious organization. And, less likely to think suffering is good for their souls for that matter.
Oh, nonsense. “Do what we say or starve” is just as effective and if anything more brutal than using guns.
Of course not; that would offend the believers. They want a captive audience. Forcing people to listen to sermons upon pain of starvation is the point of programs like this ( and I note your assumption that poor people don’t mind being strongarmed into conversion attempts ).
In this context, it means “accept money from the government to subsidize pushing your religion on people to desperate to say no”.
Of course, in matters such as this. What do you think separation of church and state is ? How else can you have it ? The believers just want it both ways; they don’t want the government ordering, say, the Catholic Church to accept female priests in the name of equal opportunity laws, but they want money from the government regardless of any laws against establishing religion. Without a hands off policy towards religion, you’ll inevitably get subsidies for religion in a society dominated by religion.
Outside of a few lunatics, everyone believes in “discrimination on the basis of belief”. It’s just that religion is a belief system that no one is supposed to disapprove of. If I was complaining about the KKK getting government money for “charity” no one would find my attitude odd, despite religion if anything having a worse record.
Except I don’t believe that’s the point of the program, I don’t trust religious groups to seriously try without the government spending so much effort looking over them it might as well do the job itself, and I don’t trust the people watching them to do their job.
Yes. And I understand that they’ll break their word ( and the law ) without hesitation and that the government will look the other way, because it’s for God.
I’m sure you don’t realize how much that statement sounds like the statement of a religious zealot, distrustful of atheists, lamenting their moral trustworthiness.
Hey, Liberal, since this thread has been dragged into yet another futile Der Trihs against the evil religious world tailchaser, lemme veer off to say this to you:
I’ve come across a most illuminating diary at DailyKos about the roots of the American Revolution, how deeply entwined they are with colonists’ pressures to appropriate native lands and the English Crown’s resistance to the expansionist demands. This aspect of history I for one was utterly unaware of and will, I suspect, be of great interest to you (and quite possibly is a matter on which you already are well-informed).
One which ought to be better known, yes, but since it doesn’t fit within the standard heroic narrative, is unlikely ever to see much daylight. I’m forwarding the link to every friend who might be interested.
Well, except for the group Masochists Against World Hunger. But since secular groups are a much smaller percentage of groups actively helping the needy, aren’t they actually less likely to feed the hungry etc?
They actually say that? You’ve heard them? That’s outrageous.
I didn’t assume anything. I just thought that the needy might be smart enough to choose for themselves. If they don’t like the religious context they can go to the secular soup kitchen across the street.
You mean like these bastards Five million meals served. Around a thousand a day. They offer Counseling, Legal and Health services. Then on Thursday they undo all their good work by having a voluntary Bible study. It’s obvious the evil outweighs the good.
Ahhhhh so all that stuff DtC was saying that he learned from his wife who writes government grants is just blowing smoke to cover their agenda?
My wife laughed when she read DT’s declaration that the feds will “look the other way” at SOCAS violations. She said, “he doesn’t know the HUD supervisors.”
Me too. Then I blush and run away sobbing audibly. This usually leads to someone offering me either a drink or some ice cream which was my only goal to begin with. I win!!!
He knows they are untrustworthy and have some religious agenda. He knows that without actually knowing them or seeing any realistic statistical data. He knows that and doesn’t need anybody with first hand experience telling him different,…because he knows what he knows. Got that mister man?
