Fixing faith-based initiatives: not rocket science

"In my experience, a Baptist does not ladle out rice in a soup kitchen differently than does a Buddhist nor does a Catholic tuck in sheets in a homeless shelter in a way that differs from a Quaker."

I don't get why progressives and others that support expanded central government reduced charity to a mere scientific exercise. Social problems can not be merely legislated away from far off perch.

That are met on the ground. In the communities of the service population. The challenges workers and volunteers address are dynamic. They require truly compassionate and well-adjusted individuals that not merely accept or tolerate a philosophy of sustaining hope and reasoned understanding of the human experience, but requires that it be internalized and sustained by virtues. The realities of the human experience they'll experience require it.

No organization hires an entry level worker that shows signs of being unable to perform adequately at the next level. Organizations desire talented individuals that can be successful at every aspect of their jobs. The candidates that internalize the mission and purpose of the organization, the ethics of the profession and understand the client base are generally the ones that hired and succeed. Why should it be any different for a secular or religious social service?

"In my experience, a Baptist does not ladle out rice in a soup kitchen differently than does a Buddhist nor does a Catholic tuck in sheets in a homeless shelter in a way that differs from a Quaker."

I don't get why progressives and others that support expanded central government reduced charity to a mere scientific exercise. Social problems can not be merely legislated away from far off perch.

That are met on the ground. In the communities of the service population. The challenges workers and volunteers address are dynamic. They require truly compassionate and well-adjusted individuals that not merely accept or tolerate a philosophy of sustaining hope and reasoned understanding of the human experience, but requires that it be internalized and sustained by virtues. The realities of the human experience they'll experience require it.

No organization hires an entry level worker that shows signs of being unable to perform adequately at the next level. Organizations desire talented individuals that can be successful at every aspect of their jobs. The candidates that internalize the mission and purpose of the organization, the ethics of the profession and understand the client base are generally the ones that hired and succeed. Why should it be any different for a secular or religious social service?

"In my experience, a Baptist does not ladle out rice in a soup kitchen differently than does a Buddhist nor does a Catholic tuck in sheets in a homeless shelter in a way that differs from a Quaker."

I don't understand why progressives and other for expanded central government authority seek to undermine charity as if it's a rote procedure. As if it's a mere scientific act. As if problems can simply be legislated away from some far off perch. That's not how it works in the real world. Progressives should have see that in their last attempt to destroy social services in the early 20th century.

People have real needs in this world. You can not seek to meet them by merely filling up a bowl of soup. It requires dynamic human contact. It requires a serious concern for the individual. It requires volunteers and workers that are talented compassionate individuals that can and are willing to meet individuals in their own sphere and provide the influence and support they need. In light of the dynamic role volunteers and workers need to have an internal sustaining hope and a reasoned understanding of suffering, grace and the human experience. To be free to act at such a deep level requires that a similar philosophy and its virtues be internalized within the volunteer or worker.

Any organization, in hiring an individual, should be free to determine whether an individual has not just the qualifications, but the ability of the person to actually do the job and to continuously perform their duties well. There are very few companies out there that will hire a qualified entry-level candidate when they display qualities that may prove limiting at the immediate level. Companies would prefer to hire the entry-level worker that can be promoted or given additional tasks. Likewise for social service organizations. Because charity is not a known formula, it exists at a very human level that requires a work force that is able to internalize the organization's mission and purpose.

I cannot see any reason for us to run tax dollars through religious organizations.

I just wanted to know if you would look at religious discrimination in hiring in the job market at large. I've been asked on several jobs if I was a Christian, either after I was hired or during the interview and lost the job each time. One was a store that sold vitamins, another was a school that was not billed as Christian (they didn't want to expose their people to me), and another was as a file clerk for our local government. This seems to be happening all over the United States, but few people are talking about it. Christian supervisors, managers or business owners seem to be using the bad job climate as punishment for not accepting Christ, letting you go knowing you may not find something else. The push to only support Christian based charities and stop all unemployment or non-Christian aid when the job is lost seems to be resulting in having to accept Christ to keep the job in many areas and if not then, accept Christ to get aid. You have to come to the church to survive, one way or the other.
I don't deserve to be punished, starved and homeless because I said no to being a Christian. I mentioned this to our local mayor's office and they said I should have known it was a Christian community when I moved here.
You can quote me, I don't care, but will someone look into this? This is why we need separation of church and state. Thank you so much for listening to me.

The Office of Faith Based initiatives needs to be abolished. At no time should any of our tax dollars go to support religious organizations of any kind. I should be the one to decide what, if any, religious organization I choose to support with my money, not the government. That money could be much better used to help get rid of the deficit. "Freedom is the Distance between Church and State."

As it stands, the faith-based program is discriminatory in another way, because it excludes charities with no religious affiliation.

This man made a lot of promises before taking office. Promises he hasn't been able to keep due to his reaching across the aisle. I really didn't think he needed to make THIS promise. Fair and equal treatment for ALL. But if he had he most obviously wouldn't have kept it either. He is a disappointment to me. The faith based initiative should've been the FIRST thing he got rid of... wouldn't be hard if he was paying attention I'd think he'd rectify this lopsided CRAP but no-he's too busy trying to prove he's a member OF this crowd to put things right....