[... perhaps christer organizations do more good than any atheist ones]

But it is also appropriate that it should do as much as possible for the downtrodden -- being responsible for having created so many of them.

Posted by Schaum
___

Are you saying that the faithers step on necks at a disproportionately higher rate than the faithless? Or are you just tarting up the rhetoric?

And when I say "Get the government out of the charity business," I mean stop spending tax dollars on homeless shelters, etc. Just stop. Let charities worry about that stuff, the Federal Government has no business involving itself in such things.

ZZIM:

"But the line separating Church and State is too important to allow a misplaced sense of charity to endanger it.

Get the government out of the charity business. Let the religious charities beg for handouts from private individuals."

BINGO!

Personally, I would prefer to see the government get out of the charity business altogether.

A secular government has zero call to practice love and compassion. If Americans want to be loving and comassionate on their own personal tiome and using their own personal cash dollars, I'm all for it.

But the line separating Church and State is too important to allow a misplaced sense of charity to endanger it.

Get the government out of the charity business. Let the religious charities beg for handouts from private individuals.

Digging a bit deeper into World Vision:

www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=394

"One website, commenting on World Vision's work in India, accuses the organization of “consciously [infusing] Christian religiosity as part of the help they provide to socially and economically marginalized communities” and funding such efforts as Bible camps and supporting local pastors. This goes well beyond its branding as an aid and development organization. "

www.answers.com/topic/world-vision

"Approximately half of World Vision's programs are funded through child sponsorship. Individuals, families, churches, schools, and other groups sponsor specific children or specific community projects in their own country or abroad. Sponsors send funds each month to provide support for the sponsored children or projects."

"In a report on famine in Ethiopia, reporter Andrew Geoghegan visited his 14 year old sponsor child. The girl has "been part of a World Vision program all her life" yet says (in translated subtitle) "Until recently, I didn't know I had a sponsor." and when asked about her knowledge of World Vision sponsorship says "Last time they gave me this jacket and a pen." Geoghegan was disconcerted to find that despite being "told by World Vision that [the girl] was learning English at school, and was improving...she speaks no English at all."[15]

In their response, World Vision states "World Vision unapologetically takes a community-based approach to development – a fact we publicly promote at every opportunity. Providing money directly to the families of sponsored children simply does not work, no matter how dire the circumstances. A ‘direct benefit' approach creates jealousy among community members that do not have sponsored children and fosters an ethos of dependency.

So while sponsored children may receive some direct benefits – like school materials or a jacket for warmth – this in no way represents the entirety of our work in a community, and it was disingenuous for the Foreign Correspondent story to imply this."

It is clearly stated on the World Vision website: "When you make a gift, your contributions are pooled with that of other sponsors of children in the community where your child lives. Your child receives health care, education, nutritious food, and the entire community benefits from access to clean water, agricultural assistance, medical care, and more."

I wonder if this World Vision policy only obtains in the US. I mean how could it apply in nonChristian countries? Those I know who worked for World Vision were from Bangladesh and India. There was no proselytizing.

At all events, it just shows to go you...

Agenda

I. End tax exempt status for all religious institutions.

II. All helpers like world vision must hire outside of their faiths or forgo nonprofit status.

III. Ban lobbying by religious institutions. (Separate Church and State.)

IV. End faith-based funding.

V. End conscience clauses. Those hospitals that are unwilling to conform to United States law lose state funds. If they close, they are replaced with state and locally run entities.

VI. End prayers in the Congress. Disband presidential faith councils and the like.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_24_125/ai_n31126448/

"The U.S. Justice Department recently disclosed a 2007 ruling by its Office of Legal Counsel that permitted the relief agency World Vision to keep a $1.5 million grant despite its policy of hiring only Christians.

World Vision successfully sought an exemption from a statute that requires grant recipients to refrain from hiring discrimination on the basis of religion. The grant was for a program aimed at reducing youth involvement in gangs.

World Vision's Web site notes under its employment qualifications that U.S. applicants will be "screened for Christian commitment."

Susan writes:
I am even more appalled that the president of the worldwide evangelical powerhouse World Vision, which does not even try to conceal the fact that it only hires Christians--its kind of Christians--for full-time jobs, is also on the advisory board.
------------------------
I don't understand this. I know Muslims, Hindus, and Christians who have worked for World Vision. They are nationals of developing nations and have nothing but good things to say about it.

SUSAN,

Hello! Why ever does your icon disappear from time to time?

It is essential to the health of countless thready beings, and to those who may yet be healed, if only they could count on knowing where to find you.

Farnaz :

World Vision is a "worldwide evangelical powerhouse?" No, it is not an evangelical organization. It is a Christian humanitarian organization, and it does a hell of a lot more good for the downtrodden of the world than any atheist organization has.

Posted by: alcmyers
------------------------------
I've known people from developing nations who worked with World Vision. They do amazing work under the most adverse circumstances. I've often fantasized about ther getting more money, more resources, but wonder if they would be able to continue on as they have been, rather than go the way of other not-so-helpful help organizations.

World Vision appears to be dedicated to the right things. And they are unified.

More on World Vision International

"Mission Statement

Dr. Bob Pierce, a Christian leader and filmmaker, in response to the needs of Korean War orphans, founded World Vision in 1950. World Vision is an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to serve the poor and oppressed through meeting their basic needs, promoting human transformation and seeking justice.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2008/951/922/2008-951922279-04f86695-9.pdf

World Vision's total contributions for 2007 were $1,113,918,057 with the US taxpayers donating $280,590,001 to this total.

Read the above reference to get an idea of where non-profits like World Vision spend their/our money.

The only problem I see with this group is the over $24 million they spend on marketing.

The president of World Vision makes about $400,000 a year, not what you call a vow of poverty. But then look how much Kobe Bryant makes every year!!

Where some of the Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Program money has gone. (note: this program does not have special funding. All funding is done through US departments and the grantees must follow strict rules.)

"Office of Acquisition and Assistance. USAID’s Office of Acquisitions and Assistance issued 11 of 40 assistance-award agreements (or 28 percent of the awards audited) without the mandatory standard provision during fiscal years (FY) 2006 and 2007—approximately $58 million (41 percent of the $140 million disbursed under awards audited):

1. Christian Children’s Fund, Inc. $869,196
2. Adventist Development and Relief Agency International 2,265,133
3. Samaritan’s Purse 3,249,557
4. Aga Khan Foundation 1,386,480
5. Salvation Army 825,000
6. African Methodist Episcopal Service and Development Agency 1,028,838
7. Hope Worldwide 5,585,608
8. Christian Aid 3,846,245
9. Marquette University 3,492,000
10. World Vision Relief and Development, Inc. 24,991,601
11. International Foundation for Education and Self-Help 9,992,231

Total Amount Awarded
$57,531,889

Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad. USAID’s Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad issued 11 of 11 assistance-award agreements (or 100 percent of the awards audited) without complete notification of the requirements within Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 205, during FY 2006 and 2007—approximately $7.3 million (or 100 percent of the dollars disbursed under awards audited):

Faith-Based Partner Amount Awarded
(Including Modifications)
1. American Committee for Shaare Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem, Inc. $400,000
2. Chicago Province of the Society of Jesus 600,000
3. Crippled Children’s United Rehabilitation Effort 900,000
4. Friends United Meeting 1,150,000
5. Medical Benevolence Foundation 675,000
6. Nazareth Project, Inc. 1,350,000
7. Salesian Missions of the Salesian Society, Inc. 400,000
8. Uganda Christian University Partners 900,000
9. United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia 300,000
10. United Methodist Committee on Relief 300,000
11. Vellore Christian Medical College Board USA, Inc. 360,000
"

ALCMYERS:

" It is a Christian humanitarian organization, and it does a hell of a lot more good for the downtrodden of the world than any atheist organization has."

This is probably true, considering that there are --- what, 20 times the number of christers as there are atheists.

But it is also appropriate that it should do as much as possible for the downtrodden -- being responsible for having created so many of them.

THE NATURE OF A-THEIST MORALITY AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR (1)

Regardless of the common christer assertion that, without their god, there can be no morality or ethics, I can think of several reasons why atheists, and agnostics, can and do behave morally, and actively promote morality. I will use the term ‘non-theists’, in order to include those non-atheists who do not believe in the christer’s god. This will include the often-misquoted and more-often-misinterpreted Thomas Jefferson.
I’ll start with the concept of self defense, which is after all the core of the so-called “Golden Rule”. As Robert Ingersol, 19th century agnostic, often explained, one basis for non-theistic morality is simply the idea of self-defense. Because non-theists do not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, they support laws prohibiting those types of harmful acts. By the same reasoning, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to advocate laws and rules of conduct that promote fair, honest, and respectful treatment of people. In this way, the concept of and need for self-defense produces a just system of laws and social standards.

Another basis for non-theistic morality is the principle of enlightened self-interest. Under this principle, it makes perfectly good sense for a person to treat others kindly and helpfully. That behavior will likely cause them to reciprocate with similar behavior, thereby increasing the happiness of fellow humans. If a person treats people selfishly and abusively, he will likely be worse off in the long run. Sooner or later, the victims will realize the injustice being done to them. The usual response is to retaliate against, ostracize, or otherwise punish the wrongdoer. And it is not just the victims who recognize the wrongdoer as a dangerous person who should be avoided. Those who witness or learn about the wrongdoing are likely to feel the same way.

Ever encountered someone who has no qualms about telling friends or coworkers of how they cheated, lied to, or stole from others?. When awake persons hear this, they know that because the person was willing to mistreat others in the past, he will almost certainly be willing to mistreat them if he perceives a similar benefit to be gained from it. As a result, they view the immoral person as a threat and danger, and they are not likely to trust or associate with him. At the very least, they will not do so in situations offering him a chance to

THE NATURE OF A-THEIST MORALITY AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR (2)

defraud or otherwise harm them. They will guard themselves from giving him opportunities to abuse them. And, in the work environment, such an immoral person's ability to qualify for raises and promotions is reduced. His continued employment may be jeopardized. And in his personal life, the ability to develop meaningful relationships is seriously narrowed. Because of the possible undesirable consequences of mistreating others, it is not in a person's long-term interest to do so.

Then there is the human need to love and be loved by others. Besides avoiding the wrath of those who have been mistreated, nontheists behave morally for a more positive reason: their love for others such as family and friends. For normal people, such love is a source of great pleasure and satisfaction. And hate produces the opposite feelings. Love for others includes a desire to see that the objects of the love are happy. Fulfilling the desire often entails unselfishness and self-sacrifice. When done in a spirit of love, those efforts can be quite pleasurable to the one making them.

As Albert Einstein said: "From the standpoint of daily life . . . there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends." Love for others likewise, I infer, includes pain at seeing their unhappiness. Work and self-denial stem from a desire to avoid that pain.

Thus, caring and helpful behavior towards others results in the pleasure of feeling love for others and the motivations naturally accompanying the feeling. Another self-interest that promotes moral behavior.

Nontheists also have reasons for doing good to those they do not know and probably never will know: some research indicating a person's emotional and physical health can improve by performing good works. Alan Luks explains in “The Healing Power of Doing Good”, science is revealing that helping others can produce many benefits for the helper. The benefits include, but are not limited to, experiencing a "helper's high" involving an initial rush of good feelings followed by a longer-lasting period of emotional well-being. The emotional benefits of

THE NATURE OF A-THEIST MORALITY AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR (3)

being kind to others are similarly described in Richard Carlson's book “Don't Sweat the Small Stuff”: "Perhaps the greatest reason to practice random kindness is that it brings great contentment into your life. Each act of kindness rewards you with positive feelings and reminds you of the important aspects of life - service, kindness, and love."

These benefits make sense in terms of human evolutionary history. Early societies that were able to develop compassion, concern for the welfare of others, and cooperation, would have had a competitive advantage over those that didn't. As Charles Darwin said: "Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected."

Using some of these reasons for behaving ethically and morally, Thomas Jefferson assured his nephew Peter Carr that belief in god is not necessary for morality. His letter to Carr states: "Fix Reason firmly in her seat . . . . Question with boldness even the existence of a God . . . . Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."

So claims about human societies needing a "divine" morality suffer from a number of very fundamental flaws, all stemming from the fact that a functioning moral system must operate within human relationships and thus cannot be created outside the context of human relationships. What's more, there's just no need for us to have any "divine" authority behind our morals because human relationships are more than enough to ground the authority of reciprocal demands we make on each other in our relationships.

The fact that secular moral claims can be subjected to criticism, dispute, and debate is precisely what makes them superior to religious, supernatural, and allegedly "divine" moral claims. Some christers are likely to see this as

THE NATURE OF A-THEIST MORALITY AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR (4)
evidence of "relativism" and thus a weakness, but this is masking the fact that they are trying to remove their moral claims from any debate and, therefore, are trying to exempt any harm caused by their claims from criticism or reform.

Notice that irrational beliefs in an unprovable, non-existent, god, or any of the myths and superstitions surrounding him, are not required to be an ethical and moral person.

Any non-theists disagree?

World Vision is a "worldwide evangelical powerhouse?" No, it is not an evangelical organization. It is a Christian humanitarian organization, and it does a hell of a lot more good for the downtrodden of the world than any atheist organization has.

I have been asked why I hang out on a site featuring a writer with the non-religious beliefs of Susan Jacoby. In truth, because she is a great writer and because this is usually the thread with the most interesting conversation. So what do people think about the RC church backing out of some programs in DC? I understand where they are coming from, but I too, am afraid that people might be left without some critical services.
Posted by: emonty | February 19, 2010 4:28 PM

+++

I am generally a reader of Ms. Jacoby’s discussions, and seldom contribute to the topic. I, too, find them interesting and not as offensive as some of the other panelists’ discussions.

I think the Roman Catholic Church can do whatever it wishes with the money it collects from its parishioners. I also think they should stop pretending that their primary mission in Washington, DC, is to assist the poor, destitute people in this community. Their action in response to the DC City Council’s approval of same-sex marriage indicates to me that their hearts are in the wrong place, and that they assist people only when they can use the might, force and resources of the government to promote their own male-dominated, male contrived dogma. I think it’s disgusting. I think it’s bigoted. And I think I am totally unsurprised by the little-girl fit the church is pitching.

I am not a follower of the Roman Catholic dogma. I do not think that dogma should have any impact or effect on my life and liberty insofar as I have consciously chosen to reject that dogma. I am extremely angry that the RCC will use same-sex couples as scapegoats to cover their immoral and, in my opinion, unethical decision to punish poor, destitute people in Washington, DC because the Council did not let them get by with their bullying.

No one would force the Roman Catholic or any other church to perform the rite of marriage for two people if their dogma does not permit that rite. The recognition of legal same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia will have no effect whatsoever on any church that does not offer the rite to marriage between same-sex couples. I think the Roman Catholic Church, at least in the DC Archdiocese, has shown the moral and ethical paucity of its leaders, and now we see them for exactly who they are: bullies and hypocrites.

elderbetty, i like that. the teacher has a degree in anything but faith. counterww, very good point. why do you think that educators want to start teaching american history at 1877 and on? so they can avoid all that high-minded stuff the country was founded on.

How can Obama flunk your "faith" based class when the teacher knows nothing about faith?

Enemy of the state-

In my view, the founders never wanted such a high separation... they wanted one, but they recognized that religious people would be active in government and that they would influence government, and they accepted that.

This does not violate the constitution for those people to do so. Read Washington's Farewell address and his viewpoint on this.

Correction to my last post: The word should have been "moat", not "mote." A small particle or speck would not be as effective a deterrent.

;o)

My tax dollars already pay for things I find reprehensible, but I accept the reality of running a country. Not everyone shares my views.

I'd be lying, though, if I said the nexus between government and religion didn't trouble me - a lot.

As an Obama supporter, this is one of a growing number of issues I take exception with. I don't want a wall between church and state: I want an electrified fence and a mote with crocodiles.

There should be a complete disconnect where religion, politics and government are concerned. Much of the world is screwed up because religion is used for the basis of government. Religious laws written centuries ago by sun-stroked fanatics are not a very good basis of anything.

Besides, there isn't a "pure" religion available what with all the charlatans and snake oil salesmen starting up mega-churches who appear to have the single-minded mission of separating the gullible from their money.

End federal grants to non-profits and faith-based groups and tax them.

Susan's Postscript is quite interesting to me.

She suggests insulting Christians intelligently.

I have heard all the insults around this forum and the common theme among the radical atheist crowd is elitism coupled with large egos - and chips on shoulders distributed all the way around . Christer does not bother me - neither does does "Xian"(just a way not to type the word Christian and makes things efficient) .

Then all of you get around and talk about it over and over again

Do you guys have lives outside this place?

And Farnaz, "OT" and "NT" ? This really gets your panties all in a bundle?

Come on, get some calluses built up. People can insult and infer, if you disagree with their POV, then just ignore it, and try to argue your point logically and without malice if you can.

Susan is right about one thing- the sort of discourse on this forum, the insulting and high minded attitudes- she is right- some of the language you would never use face to face with people at work. I will give Schaum credit for being transparent but to give your personal info over the internet to virtual strangers- and that is what we are, strangers- did you think that through? Not really prudent.

"AUDIT OF USAID’S FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES"

http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/fy09rpts/9-000-09-009-p.pdf

This audit surveyed 31 USAID regional legal advisors, as well as 9 of the 10 faith-based organizations that receive the most USAID funding, concerning the use of USAID funds for religious activities. From these responses, audit staff found that some USAID-awarded funds were used for religious activities in four contracts that amounted to more than $325,000. These funds were used for the rehabilitation of mosques and adjoining community centers in Iraq. USAID also funded, within a program to combat HIV/AIDS, lesson plans that contained Biblical applications and discussions.

Table 1. Excerpt from Project Tracking Sheet
Project Title
City/District
Project
End Date
Contracted Cost
Shorta Mosque and Community Center Rehabilitation
Fallujah
8 Jun 07
$86,846
Jolan Mosque and Community Center Rehabilitation
Fallujah
8 Jun 07
74,447
Jubail Mosque and Community Center Rehabilitation
Fallujah
10 Jun 07
118,553
Al Shuhada Mosque and Community Center Rehabilitation
Fallujah
8 Jun 07
45,492
Total
$325,338"

"Safeguards on faith-based organizations

Faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect separation of church and state.

They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.

Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.

FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13[3]"

While I'm sure that some faith-based groups receiving federal grants may violate policies regarding proselytizing, I can say personally I have not seen anything of the sort. I have volunteered with many faith-based charitable organizations, and I currently work for a faith-based charitable organization. NEVER have any of the organizations I have worked with proselytized, screened the needy based on their religious beliefs, or barred people of other faiths (or atheists) from volunteering, interning, or working full-time for them. These organizations have only asked that volunteers and staff share the passion for social justice that underpins their charitable work. I am Catholic, and my co-workers are Muslim, Orthodox, Atheist, Pentecostal, Baha'i, Buddhist... In another post, UTAHREB clamors about needy people being forced to submit to others religious beliefs before admitting "As an "equal opportunity heathen", I volunteer at two local groups, the Salvation Army and St. Vincent de Paul. At neither one are people questioned as to their religious beliefs or church membership in order to receive needed services. Nor am I required to be a member of a specific church." I believe that many of the people foaming at the mouth in ire at the mention of "faith-based organizations" have never set foot in any of these organizations as a volunteer or otherwise. Do the rules and definitions on faith-based initiatives need to be cleaned up? Sure. But, painting all faith-based charitable oragizations with one broad and unfavorable (as well as untruthful) stroke is simply ignorant.

Well, it is a problem of government, but not one of specificity or enforcment of such imperial edicts. It is one of scope creep.

If government is going to be in the charity business *of course* it has to include the major players in the delivery of charity.

If the government is going to be in the health-care business or the banking business, *of course* it has to include members of those communities in its regulatory bodies.

If the goverment is going to be make automobiles, *of course* automakers need representation.

In any process, stakeholders need their interests taken into account if there is going to be any prayer of compliance or continuity.

However, no one asks if the government should be meddling in all of this crap in the first place. What happens when you don't get another savior elected? Power is as power does and we give it away to people you wouldn't let your daughter alone with while hiking the appalachian trail ;-)

As far as christer and Xian, Xian is a contraction for "the Christ", after all, Joseph and Mary's last name wasn't Christ and the term Christ is has weighty connotations of unreasonable faith in magic. The X, the Cross, the symbol of faith in saviorship, divinity, triune nonsense that I simply deny as unreasonable and ridiculous. Given the stink of the Mohammedans over impure usage of their symbols, it seems a safe bet that we should invent our own so as not to step on any toes.

Christer is a different animal. I use it for any one who has accepted the lord as savior, proseletyzer or not. They have the faith with which you do not argue. They may be entirely reasonable in other areas, but you just do not discuss religion with them or try to dislodge their faith with a sound argument or logic. They have enough faith that they've created their own irrefutable logic that is unshakable if you accept the first premises.

Christers exist, they are a political force as a group and they are good citizens as individuals, stakeholders who have the right of representation as much as anyone.

Dialog with them is tricky because you cannot go down the road of challenging their faith and they will drive the discussion there if at all possible. The best you can do is get acknowledgement that you have a right to exist and representation, too, as an individual, free as in speech, not to be hampered in your pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

The devil is in the details, but as long as we say, you christer, you have no right to control me and they say, you heathen, your laws lead to nothing but depraved debauchery and the ruination of civil society, we get nowhere.

The definition of faith: a firm belief in something WHICH CAN NOT BE PROVED.

How and why do we pay so much attention to people (and their institutions) who have "faith?" Why do we allow Catholic bishops to wander the halls of Congress to lobby for their "faith"-based (and penile) politics? Why are we holding an annual Prayer Breakfast (which is promoted by the C Street/Family cult)?

I am not suggesting that we be disrespectful toward those who have "faith," but I do wish that we could persuade them that their "faith" should be a family affair...not a national or government sanctioned one.

I find myself wondering the issue of separation of church and state can ever be decided reasonably. My fears about the blurring of that principle are reinforced every day.

I found that I could not even offer the picture of a public square that is absolutely inclusive and yet protects all from attempts at religious domination. Religious domination seems to be inherent in all evangelical beliefs. They seem to be driven by certitude and the core belief there is no other acceptable way. How do you have a conversation with someone who has no room to compromise without giving up their core belief. It makes me wonder if Obama actually did impose these restrictions how many of these organizations would follow them. Would it mean trying to enforce it 24/7 and making martyrs out of those who resist it?

How is it that those who readily admit to insisting on dominance over all conflicting views are allowed to call the tune? It's an old battle I guess. One that is apparently rarely won, in spite of what the founding fathers thought they prevented.

If the Citizens of my neighborhood, or in general, are getting Human Assistance, or direct hands-on help for those truly in need then I would be very happy.

But I still demand to know Who (.Org's)in my vicinity or neighborhood is getting what. As a matter of fact, I would even recommend to add more Tax-money to the FBO's if I was convinced that Philanthropy via FBO's is doing miracles, or near such results.

Maybe the White-House will be smart disseminating or divulging that specific info to the public domain. It is, as I see it, in the Public's best interest.

Else, best to dissolve this FBO once and for all and let the private-sector do the work or care giving. This is very serious stuff.

YEAL9: Anyone can go to Wiki (I've seen this site already, Thanks) but I would like to know, as a Tax Paying Citizen, in detail, like an Itemized list, specifically which Not-For-Profit" .Org got our money and for what or where spent. Don't you want to know?

It's not like I'm going to smash my small plane into the FBO building.

There are many of us who do not attend any organized religious group (big businesses, now) but want to help the needy. Why should I have to believe in one way in order to help? Why should those in need be forced to listen and agree with ideas they don't actually agree with in order to get help?

As an "equal opportunity heathen", I volunteer at two local groups, the Salvation Army and St. Vincent de Paul. At neither one are people questioned as to their religious beliefs or church membership in order to receive needed services. Nor am I required to be a member of a specific church.

If I remember my Bible correctly, there was no requirement by Jesus when he healed the sick, fed the hungry and helped the needy. No one had to go through a pre-screening for help.

You want my tax dollars to help the needy? Then keep your religion OUT OF IT!

"For fiscal year 2005, more than $2.2 billion in competitive social service grants were awarded to faith-based organizations. Between fiscal years 2003 and 2005, the total dollar amount of all grants awarded to FBOs increased by 21 percent (GAO 2006:43[3]). The majority of these grants were distributed through state agencies to local organizations in the form of formula grants (GAO 2006:17[3])."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships

Effective government for the people must meet the people where they live, work, eat and pray.

Effective partnerships with faith-based organizations are necessary for effective, people-oriented government.

This whole post is rank with pseudo-intellectual superiority. Jacoby, who are you to decide the values of others in our community?

Mellwood1 is a christianist, thanks for posting so quickly.

In the first place, the government has no business serving people in prayer. Live, eat, and work, sure, we all do that. But many do not pray, and many pray to other religions. The government has NO authority to meddle in this area. But of course, as a christianist, you want our common government to do it.

Which means you want to decide the values of "our community" ... that's all of us, not just your chistian community. But of course, as a christianist, you want to decide what values other people in other communities living here in America must live by.

Nobody is stopping you from deciding these things for yourself. Arguments which are superior to yours are not intellectual snobbery, they are better arguments.

Who cares. As long as people are really being helped then it should not be a big deal.

It would be interesting, since, as a Tax Payer, I'm in the dark about exactly who, where and how much money is being doled out to each registrant (Religious Organizations) and for what type of services. That is the Question.

Effective government for the people must meet the people where they live, work, eat and pray.

Effective partnerships with faith-based organizations are necessary for effective, people-oriented government.

This whole post is rank with pseudo-intellectual superiority. Jacoby, who are you to decide the values of others in our community?

I choose to use the word "christianist" rather than "christer", reflecting my differentiation between your run-of-the-mill Christian and those who wish to impose Christianity on everybody.

Christianists are political Christians - the kind who want our common secular government to reflect their religious rules, to make sin illegal, etc. They're the ones who insist that our country is a Christian country, with only a Christian history, that all our founding fathers were Christians, and screw everybody else.

These christianists as well see all opposition as both religious and political opposition. I as an atheist do not want my tax dollars being spent on government promoted religious crap. That ends it for me. I don't resist their being christian, I don't care.

This ends up being in opposition to the christianists, so they see me as a political threat. They denounce me as being against christianity and christians, when all I'm really against is their assumption of power.

This seems like a good occasion to make a point about the establishment clause in the First Amendment: it reads "... establishment of religion ...", not 'a' religion or 'some' religion, but of religion as such. The language of that clause is as sweeping and comprehensive -- absolute? -- as the words that begin the amendment: "Congress shall make no law...". If funding ain't establishing, what is?

Schaum,

Posted by: Schaum | February 19, 2010 1:53 PM

Good post, the above, very good. Susan, with whom I occasionally disagree, but always respect, surprises me with this "christer" business. Again, it is a very (VERY) widespread usage. I used it, myself, against bigots on this blog, two or three times. I stopped because it made me uncomfortable. However, I will not be disarmed. Not unless they are. Either we all respect one another's beliefs, heritage, etc., or none of us do. One would hope the latter would prevail. I speak only for myself, here, of course.

I would imagine that those who are offended by "christer" will be careful not to use "OT" (sic) and "NT" (sic), and just in case they are reading this, no, I will not discuss it. This is the year 2010. Jews exist, and the problems with the above terminology have been discussed ad nauseum in books, in articles, on web sites, etc. Ad nauseum here as well.

Schaum,

"I could go on. It is a goose and gander kind of thing. If you don't want to see the word "Christer on this thread, so be it."

Christers are not really offended by the word 'christer'...thats not what this is about. If it were, they would simply not read my posts. No problem with that. The real issue is their need to CONTROL -- what is thought, said, or implied about them and their superstitious beliefs. For me the word has significance, and I will continue to use it.
-----------------
I don't know whom you mean when you say it was "their need," Schaum. It was Susan who posted on the "christer" issue, she, in particular. All of us have blind spots, vous, moi, et al, excluded, needless to say.

And, yes, it does concern power, privilege, for some. Majority Atheists can be quite as blind as anyone else to their own desires to reinscribe privilege, hegemony, ideology, etc., in any number of ways, including paternalism.

Otherwise, "Moses, the Tablet-Man" would have vanished much more quickly than it did from this thread, along with "NT" (sic) and "OT" (sic), etc. "Retard" used as a noun would have been understood to be as offensive and unacceptable as it surely is.

And I could go on and on and on.

For monies spent by state on the SAPT (Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant program), apparently part of the Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, see http://www.tie.samhsa.gov/Documents/pdf/SAPT%20History%201992%20-%202007.pdf

Bottom line: $1.6 billion/yr.

"Opportunities for Faith-Based and Community Organizations at the State and Local Levels

•Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SAPT) - Program Information and State Contacts

•Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) - Program

Information and State Contacts

•Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) - Program Information and State Contacts

•Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) - Program Information and State Contacts

•State Abstinence Education Program - Program Information and State Contacts

•Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) - Program Information and State Contacts"

for example, PATH in DC:

1District of Columbia Commis...
Michele May
1905 E Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 673-20381

The Homeless Outreach Program

64 New York Ave NE
Washington, DC 200022DMH

Housing Division

64 New York Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20002

Farnaz:

"I could go on. It is a goose and gander kind of thing. If you don't want to see the word "Christer on this thread, so be it."

Christers are not really offended by the word 'christer'...thats not what this is about. If it were, they would simply not read my posts. No problem with that. The real issue is their need to CONTROL -- what is thought, said, or implied about them and their superstitious beliefs. For me the word has significance, and I will continue to use it.

"Look for a change in focus. The Bush program focused mostly on organization and building up organizations so that they would then have a greater capacity to be able to serve more youth, families, and individuals. I expect President Obama to focus more on direct services to youth and to require that more of the funding g toward direct services rather than administrative or capacity building activities.

Look for a change in emphasis. President Obama has made it clear that a priority concern will be to support women, to address teen pregnancy, and to reduce the need for abortion. He has also stated an emphasis on getting young men into well-paying jobs and encouraging responsible fatherhood. This will likely come about through a focus on job training programs, pregnancy centers, and fatherhood initiatives. But do not expect many abstinence-only programs to secure funding!
"

http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/pastor/2009/06/analysis-of-the-obama-office-on-faith-based-and-neighborhood-partnerships-12/index.html

Onofrio,

If possible, could you continue the posting you began on Susan's last thread--regarding Horus and Christ?

I've copied and pasted your comments this time. When and if you can continue would you let us know?

Thanks!

Farnaz

PS. Did you know that "Christer" is a man's name?

SUSAN,

I forgot to mention "Moses, the tablet-man," which made its appearance on this thread for a
couple of years, my endless protests against both the usage and hyphen unheeded.

Were wast thou?

SUSAN WRITES:

I wish that those of you who use the term "christer" would stop doing it. It's insulting to Christian believers. And if you enjoy insulting Christian believers, I would argue that "christer" obliterates the distinction between Christians who don't want to impose their religion on others and those who do.
------------------------
Is it up to us, then, to make the majority "feel good"? I am, of course, referring to your oft stated insistence that your task with respect to minorities was not to do so, although with some minorities you have not evidenced that problem.

"Christer," in the context to which you refer, is frequently used by atheists and others, to protest, not only religionism but the bigotry that some Christians/Catholics visit upon the rest of us.

It is far less offensive than than the nominalization of "retard," less dangerous than "OT" (sic) has proven, historically, to be the bodies of us Js. Interestingly, most of your "believer" panelists seem to have learned long ago that "OT" is unacceptable and, therefore, use either Tanakh (preferred) or Hebrew Bible (not great).

These same folks refer to the "NT" (sic) as, variously, the Christian Testament or the Christian Bible.

Your colleagues would seem to understand that the supersessionist ideology evident in "NT" (sic) and "OT" (sic) has been denounced for decades. See the Vatican web site on this. For these folks, including the Vatican, the problem of typology remains, however, hence the ideology. Still, dispensing with the NT, OT labels is at least to become conscious of the problem.

I could go on. It is a goose and gander kind of thing. If you don't want to see the word "Christer on this thread, so be it. I assume we can expect a similarly "enlightened" approach from you toward those who, unlike you, are neither Catholic nor Protestant, i.e., not Christian. And no, to say someone is a Catholic atheist is not oxymoronic. (We've had this discussion before.)

If it were oxymoronic, then you would have opposed many other highly offensive epithets--along with the ignorant comments on Tanakh, reprising the blind colonization of that text, with assigned meaninings irrelevant to both it and the Jews for whom it is intended.

Worth thinking about m'dear.

Farnaz

While I'm not happy with the way President Obama has failed in his pledge to clean up the problems with faith-based charities, I also have no reason to believe the situation wouldn't be worse under McCain, who not only selected/accepted Palin as a running mate, but also solicited the endorsements of John Hagee and Rod Parsley and who said during the campaign that he thought "that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

"Didn't someone get caught doing this a year or so ago? Wonder how it is possible to do it again..."

Think, think... Was it some toxic catholic guy with a fascination for Nazis?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Persiflage:

You are right. I didn't notice the difference in signatures, but the "...also free to display their limited command..." which should have read "display his limited..." should have been a warning signal.

Didn't someone get caught doing this a year or so ago? Wonder how it is possible to do it again...

Susan_Jacoby,

"Everyone is also free to display their limited command of the English language by using double negatives,words like ain't, and smiley faces."

Ouch! (:^U {|^( :^O

But ain't no cryin' here, no sir...

FYI -

Do be advised that the poster Susan_Jacoby is not our esteemed author and On Faith essayist, Susan Jacoby - in the event anyone is confusing the two....the former being a mere poser, and not a very convincing one.

My limited interest or opinion regarding Faith-based funding is that it should be open to ALL groups doing public good works....any and all group that meet the criteria, in other words.

One also hopes that mandatory prayer is not a requirement in order to qualify as a recipient of benefits distributed by faith-based organizations.

On topic:

Agreed. There is a problem when the government is willing to let faith-based organizations take care of basic needs and services. The problems exist both for the government and the faith-based organizations. If my church (or any other) wants to work in the public sector with public monies, there will inevitably be problems.

Back on topic:

We could probably eliminate most faith-based initiatives, and the problems that come with them, if the government itself (that is, "We the People of the United States") did more to "promote the general Welfare".

"But what more, really, can they do to Obama? They could add a 666--the mark of the devil--to the Hitler mustache on their posters. Bring it on."

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 1996:

"Mark of the Beast

This mark is equivalent to the beast's name or number (13:17; cf. 14:11). This enigmatic number is announced in 13:18 as 666

"MARK: The UPC code [barcode] with needed information on each person.

"NAME OF THE BEAST: This will be a name with six letters in each name invisibly coded into the laser tattoo or micro chip placed under the skin. A computer could pick this up as 'six digits' in each name."

hmmmm.... A name with three words of six letters each...

Nope. Obama doesn't qualify as the beast.

But Ronald Wilson Reagan does.

Arminius:

Paranoia? No. You are very welcome to visit. I just like to know in advance. You know, fresh towels in the bathrooms, fresh sheets on beds, carpets vacuumed, no unwashed dishes in the sink...

"So what do people think about the RC church backing out of some programs in DC?"

I think it is clear proof that the RC church is willing to blackmail the government when it doesn't get away with its papist designs and intentions -- in this case, to prevent gay marriage (even among non-catholics) and to preserve its right to practice discrimination in employment.

Schaum,

"Trust me?? For what? Were you planning on showing up unannounced? I'd prefer that you not."

Not a chance. Put your paranoia to rest.

Arminius:

"As to Shaum's identity, the phone number checks out to that location. We'll just have to trust him on the rest."

Trust me?? For what? Were you planning on showing up unannounced? I'd prefer that you not.

I have been asked why I hang out on a site featuring a writer with the non-religious beliefs of Susan Jacoby. In truth, because she is a great writer and because this is usually the thread with the most interesting conversation. So what do people think about the RC church backing out of some programs in DC? I understand where they are coming from, but I too, am afraid that people might be left without some critical services.

Christer (krīs′tər)

noun

Slang a Christian, esp. one actively engaged in proselytizing or evangelizing: a term of contempt or disparagement

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2009 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Synonyms(person who publicly displays his religion): fundamentalist, fanatic, witness

Emonty is indeed what I would call a Christian, and he and I also agree on freedom of religion and freedom from of it too.

As to Shaum's identity, the phone number checks out to that location. We'll just have to trust him on the rest.

Yep. Emonty is definitely one of the good christers.

Schaum's identity!

Schaum and I did in fact exchange emails. I suspect that we could sit down and have a beer together. Perhaps we will someday since he lives in one of my favorite parts of the country and I haven't lived or visted there in many years. We are far apart on religious beliefs, but very close together on freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

ZZIT:

On the other hand, you could just check with EMONTY. We just exchanged emails.

ZZIT:

"More likely it's some guy who annoyed you in the past and you're just getting some revenge on him by coming on here, acting hateful, and then putting out someone else's contact info for hate mail purposes."

Wow. With your paranoia, you must have been a really happy christer. Hateful, because my views differ from yours? Have I interfered, directly or indirectly, with your ability to post what you please? Besides, I think what you suggest would be called identity theft, and thats a big no-no.

There's one way to find out: send me an email.

Carstonio

Thanks for your clarification. I see where you are coming from now.

Yeah, assuming of course that the name and address you posted is actually yours. More likely it's some guy who annoyed you in the past and you're just getting some revenge on him by coming on here, acting hateful, and then putting out someone else's contact info for hate mail purposes.

Gottinhimmel! I actually said "hate calls from christers has begun already." Serious apologies are in order. Obviously it should read "have begun already." My mother is probably revolving in her grave.

ZZim,
I am in agreement about the use of the term 'Christer'. It sometimes comes across as a weak attempt to make a religious insult like the 'N' word. As to 'Xian', however - this was Mr Mark's favorite term. I had some wonderful discussions, and a few fights, with him, and came off with a great respect for the guy. I realized that he was really just poking fun with 'Xian', and not insulting per se.
Posted by: Arminius
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hey Arminius,
Well, nothing is really insulting per se, not even “the N-word”. A lot depends on context. I have noted that “X-ian” is generally used in a derogatory manner around here and I don’t think it’s necessary.

I’m not personally a member of any religious sect, but the vast majority of Americans are and they are almost all excellent people. I really don’t enjoy reading insults and invective aimed at groups of people. Also, I would like to say I would like to see the words “demoncrat” and “rethuglican” banned as well.

Kudos to Susan for actively moderating her blog and addressing the issue.

ColoradoDog said,
"Huckabees who find offense - as I do - from the word "christer" have no problems contemptuously and condescendingly calling others'"non-believers'"

Well, I willingly use the term 'non-believer' to refer to myself since for over 3 decades in my life I was one. If this is offensive to you and others, what term should I use? And BTW, I am not a 'Huckabee', I am very progressive.

Ah! The anticipated incoming hate calls from christers has begun already. That was fast. Two points: (1) at least, having expressed your thoughts, do not hang up until I have an opportunity to respond: (2) I will not answer any call in which the 'number withheld' is displayed.

Anything else is fair play. Have at it!

Susan Jacoby:

"You are, of course, perfectly free to use all of the lowest common denominator language you like, as long as it doesn't violate the standards of the blog--over which I have no control. I'm not a censor. But I wonder if you would use this kind of language at work, for instance? This is just another example of the drawbacks of Web anonymity. Everyone is also free to display their limited command of the English language by using double negatives,words like ain't, and smiley faces."

Thank you for your permission; I'm sure you will not be offended if I state that I was surprised at your implication that I either needed it or wanted it.

"lowest common denominator language"....I could, I suppose, be less "common" and more "explicit" by using such qualifiers as "mainstream" christers; "evangelical" christers; "ex-convict" christers; "homicidal" christers (for those who support the death penalty); "bible-thumping" christers; "liturgical" christers for those of a more episcopal inclination...etc.

But, having spent half of my life as a christer, I find that word to be entirely expressive of their collective mindset: a voluntary willingness to have "faith" in a "god" that cannot be proven. I like facts and science and reason. "Christers" is a word which reveals both MY feelings about them when I was one, and MY attitude about them in the years following. I have never suggested that anyone else should use that word. That is immaterial to me. It is enough that the meaning implied by my use of it is obviously clearly understood.

To answer your question: I use the word regularly, in and outside my home, and I had no problem using it around my students.

As for your smokescreen about anonymity:

I can be reached at Hugh.Moser@gmail.com. My first name is David, which is what most people call me. My home address is 305 South Charles Street, Blacksburg, VA (24060), and my phone number is 540-449-2689.

Huckabees who find offense - as I do - from the word "christer" have no problems contemptuously and condescendingly calling others "non-believers"

"Non-believers" in what?

- pre-emptive war?
- capital punishment?
- torture?
- unlimited church and corporate spending to influence elections?
- health care and education only for the rich?
- Fox News?
- hatred spewed by Limbaugh and Mormon Elder Beck?
- establishment of religious icons and scripture in publicly funded buildings?
- a nation selectively prosecuting some pedophiles and not others?
- William Donohue who says all victims of clergy molestation are just "gold diggers"?
- Bishops interfering in public policy by cutting off communion to legislators?
- an their list goes on......

If this is the GOP "loyalty test" for "non-believers" I guess I am one.

"For Immediate Release February 5, 2009

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -
AMENDMENTS TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 13199 AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR FAITH-BASED AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIPS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to strengthen the ability of faith-based and other neighborhood organizations to deliver services effectively in partnership with Federal, State, and local governments and with other private organizations, while preserving our fundamental constitutional commitments, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Amendments to Executive Order. Executive Order 13199 of January 29, 2001 (Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), is hereby amended:

(a) by striking section 1, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"Section 1. Policy. Faith-based and other neighborhood organizations are vital to our Nation's ability to address the needs of low-income and other underserved persons and communities. The American people are key drivers of fundamental change in our country, and few institutions are closer to the people than our faith-based and other neighborhood organizations. It is critical that the Federal Government strengthen the ability of such organizations and other nonprofit providers in our neighborhoods to deliver services effectively in partnership with Federal, State, and local governments and with other private organizations, while preserving our fundamental constitutional commitments guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws and the free exercise of religion and forbidding the establishment of religion. The Federal Government can preserve these fundamental commitments while empowering faith-based and neighborhood organizations to deliver vital services in our communities, from providing mentors and tutors to school children to giving ex-offenders a second chance at work and a responsible life to ensuring that families are fed. The Federal Government must also ensure that any organization receiving taxpayers' dollars must be held accountable for its performance. Through rigorous evaluation, and by offering technical assistance, the Federal Government must ensure that organizations receiving Federal funds achieve measurable results in furtherance of valid public purposes."

Continued below:

It's a mentality that these charities are not willing to compromise on their core values to get govt. money.

Which core values would those be?

But, would you agree that if you are going to restrict church behavior, and force secular hiring practices...you no longer have a church activity.

No, because discrimination in hiring is not an exclusively secular concept. What sort of religious doctrine would require that type of discrimination?

(b) by substituting "White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" for "White House Office of Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives" each time it appears in the order; and by substituting "Office" for "White House OFBCI" each time it appears in the order.

(c) in section 3, by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsections:

"(c) to ensure that services paid for with Federal Government funds are provided in a manner consistent with fundamental constitutional commitments guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws and the free exercise of religion and prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion;

(d) to promote effective training for persons providing federally funded social services in faith-based and neighborhood organizations;

(e) to promote the better use of program evaluation and research, in order to ensure that organizations deliver services as specified in grant agreements, contracts, memoranda of understanding, and other arrangements;", and renumbering the subsequent subsections of section 3 accordingly.
"

Continued below:

The poster indicated "it (the country)also consists of folks who believe there can BE no separation of church and state."

If this is so, and I believe it is, how do you reconcile the two positions? There is no question about religious freedom expressed in my response to 'greenink'. I was expressing an interest in what, if anything, we should do for such people.

I thought you were asking a rhetorical question. Obviously we can't change their minds, but we can work to preserve religious freedom. They may not necessarily want government to be controlled by one religion's clergy, but they may want American culture and government to treat one religion as the "default" or "normal" religion.

(d) in section 4, by striking the first sentence of subsection (b), and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "The Office shall have a staff to be headed by the Special Assistant to the President and Executive Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (Executive Director)."

Sec. 2. President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

(a) Establishment. There is established within the Executive Office of the President the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (Council).

(b) Mission. The Council shall bring together leaders and experts in fields related to the work of faith-based and neighborhood organizations in order to: identify best practices and successful modes of delivering social services; evaluate the need for improvements in the implementation and coordination of public policies relating to faith-based and other neighborhood organizations; and make recommendations to the President, through the Executive Director, for changes in policies, programs, and practices that affect the delivery of services by such organizations and the needs of low-income and other underserved persons in communities at home and around the world.

(c) Membership. (1) The Council shall be composed of not more than 25 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not officers or employees of the Federal Government. The members shall be persons with experience and expertise in fields related to the provision of social services by faith-based and other neighborhood organizations.

(2) Members of the Council shall serve for terms of 1 year, and may continue to serve after the expiration of their terms until the President appoints a successor. Members shall be eligible for reappointment and serve at the pleasure of the President during their terms.

(3) The President shall designate a member of the Council to serve as Chair for a term of 1 year at the pleasure of the President. The Chair may continue to serve after the expiration of the Chair's term and shall be eligible for redesignation by the President.

(4) The Executive Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships shall also serve as Executive Director of the Council.

Continued below:

(5) The Council shall have a staff headed by the Executive Director.

(d) Administration. (1) Upon the request of the Chair, with the approval of the Executive Director, the heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Council with information it needs for purposes of carrying out its mission.

(2) With the approval of the Executive Director, the Council may request and collect information, hold hearings, establish subcommittees, and establish task forces consisting of members of the Council or other individuals who are not officers or employees of the Federal Government, as necessary to carry out its mission.

(3) With the approval of the Executive Director, the Council may conduct analyses and develop reports or other materials as necessary to perform its mission.

(4) Members of the Council shall serve without compensation, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701B5707) to the extent funds are available.

(5) To the extent permitted by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Department of Health and Human Services shall provide the Council with administrative support and with such funds as may be necessary for the performance of the Council's functions.

(e) General Provisions. (1) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (Act), may apply to the Council, any functions of the President under that Act, except for those in section 6 of the Act, shall be performed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in accordance with guidelines issued by the Administrator of General Services.

(2) The Council shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order unless extended by the President.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(1) authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) In order to ensure that Federal programs and practices involving grants or contracts to faith-based organizations are consistent with law, the Executive Director, acting through the Counsel to the President, may seek the opinion of the Attorney General on any constitutional and statutory questions involving existing or prospective programs and practices.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 5, 2009.

"Your post seems to imply that at least some of the charities care less about alleviating suffering and more about winning converts.
Posted by: Carstonio"

Well, I think it is a matter of principle for christian charities. It's a mentality that these charities are not willing to compromise on their core values to get govt. money.

The perception is what it is...I would agree with your sentiment. But, would you agree that if you are going to restrict church behavior, and force secular hiring practices...you no longer have a church activity.

ZZim,

I am in agreement about the use of the term 'Christer'. It sometimes comes across as a weak attempt to make a religious insult like the 'N' word. As to 'Xian', however - this was Mr Mark's favorite term. I had some wonderful discussions, and a few fights, with him, and came off with a great respect for the guy. I realized that he was really just poking fun with 'Xian', and not insulting per se.

Carstonio

"That's the whole point - the First Amendment protects the religious freedom of everyone no matter what their personal stances on religion."

No, with all due respect, that is not the point. The poster indicated "it (the country)also consists of folks who believe there can BE no separation of church and state."

If this is so, and I believe it is, how do you reconcile the two positions? There is no question about religious freedom expressed in my response to 'greenink'. I was expressing an interest in what, if anything, we should do for such people.

Susan,

First, I am total agreement that Obama should act on this, and I agree that it is not just a non-believer problem.

Next - you said, "I wish that those of you who use the term "christer" would stop doing it. It's insulting to Christian believers..."
Thank you VERY much!!!!

Schaum--

You are, of course, perfectly free to use all of the lowest common denominator language you like, as long as it doesn't violate the standards of the blog--over which I have no control. I'm not a censor. But I wonder if you would use this kind of language at work, for instance? This is just another example of the drawbacks of Web anonymity. Everyone is also free to display their limited command of the English language by using double negatives,words like ain't, and smiley faces.

Whose church is entitled to run the state in your opinion, and what about all the other churched, and non-churched people who disagree?

That's the whole point - the First Amendment protects the religious freedom of everyone no matter what their personal stances on religion.

This country consists of religionists as well as atheists. He does not have to give in to one group as opposed to another.

Those two groups aren't necessarily in opposition. Most believers do support church/state separation, and that concept isn't atheistic.

greeneink

"it also consists of folks who believe there can BE no separation of church and state."

There's the rub isn't it? Whose church is entitled to run the state in your opinion, and what about all the other churched, and non-churched people who disagree?

Obama's not flunking Constitutional law. This country consists of religionists as well as atheists. He does not have to give in to one group as opposed to another. He has to work so that what is best for all is done, and so that nobody "wins." And nobody ever wins these arguments. If religious people have a "place" in this society, so do atheists, or its called plain bigotry -- one against the other. Fair is fair. This country does not just consist of those who believe in separation of church and state, it also consists of folks who believe there can BE no separation of church and state. And they are just as validly American and legal as anyone else. Cut the crap.

Susan,

I originally felt offended by the word 'christer' and said so. However, I have communicated with some of those people and I don't think they are trying to personally insult me.

I have attempted, with mixed success, to calm some of the rhetoric by showing that one can be a Christian, any other faith, or none at all, and be respectful of others' beliefs, without sacrificing one's own integrity.

I enjoy your writing and the lively arguments that ensue. I seriously doubt that anyone has been converted to anything based on the arguments found here, but that is alright. If we all listen to each other we might just learn something.

I am a devout Christian of the Roman Catholic variety. I cannot and do not support some of the more 'loathsome' things about my church, but I am not ashamed of the beauty I find there either. I walk my own path and I am perfectly content to let others walk theirs.

Count me among those who have no desire to shove my religion down anybody's throat, nor do I wish my government to do so. Any faith means something only if it is chosen, not mandated. We live in a pluralistic country with separation of church and state. I appreciate the way you attempt to guard this boundary because I think such separation benefits all people whether they know it or not. I strongly suspect this is a happier situation than any theocracy I can possibly imagine.

I don't mind being called 'christer'; it's not far from Christian, and that is what I am. If the label enables people to talk to me seriously, so be it. At the same time, I hope I never use any label with the intent to offend, and if so, I hope someone calls me out on it.

Susan, regarding your postscript. Thanks for denouncing the use of prejudicial labels in the comments section. Bigoted labeling has a tendency to coarsen the dabate here and that's very frustrating.

You might also want to address the term "Xtian", as I think that term is generally used in an offensive and demeaning manner too.

I am leary of the "throw out the baby with the bath-water" position that would inevitibly develop if you forced these charities to conform to the regulations you wish to push on them. I think they would turn down the money, which in the end would hurt those who need the assistance.

Why would they object to the requirement that they use the money only for charity and not for proselytizing? Or the requirement that they refrain from trying to convert the people they help? Or that they not discriminate in hiring? Your post seems to imply that at least some of the charities care less about alleviating suffering and more about winning converts.

James Madison to James Monroe from May 29, 1785 on the successful removal of the establishment of assesment for the Episcopal church in Virginia:

“It gives me much pleasure to observe by 2 printed reports sent me by Col. Grayson that, in the latter Congress had expunged a clause contained in the first for setting apart a district of land in each Township for supporting the Religion of the majority of inhabitants. How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the Authority of Congress, so hurtful to the sale of the public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated Bigotry, could have received the countenance of a Committee is truly matter of astonishment."

If tax dollars are spent on faith based initiatives the act essentially hinders freedom of religion. By directing money to support the activities of a certain faith, whether or not any individual contributing that money would so choose, it effectively forces all inidividual to support the activities of that faith, thus restricting freedom of religion.

Madison wrote in objection to Religious proclamations of the executive:

"The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities..."

"They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion."

Carstonio Wrote:

"The larger issue is why the program targets only religious charities and discriminates against secular ones. Programs like this should be open to all charities regardless of affiliation."

I understand why you give money to religious charities, as they are entrenched in the community and are, therefore, well-positioned to help those who need help the most. I am leary of the "throw out the baby with the bath-water" position that would inevitibly develop if you forced these charities to conform to the regulations you wish to push on them. I think they would turn down the money, which in the end would hurt those who need the assistance.

I was unaware that secular charities were not able to take advantage of the program. If so, that is a crock.

James Madison to James Monroe from May 29, 1785 on the successful removal of the establishment of assesment for the Episcopal church in Virginia:

“It gives me much pleasure to observe by 2 printed reports sent me by Col. Grayson that, in the latter Congress had expunged a clause contained in the first for setting apart a district of land in each Township for supporting the Religion of the majority of inhabitants. How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the Authority of Congress, so hurtful to the sale of the public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated Bigotry, could have received the countenance of a Committee is truly matter of astonishment."

If tax dollars are spent on faith based initiatives the act essentially hinders freedom of religion. By directing money to support the activities of a certain faith, whether or not any individual contributing that money would so choose, it effectively forces all inidividual to support the activities of that faith, thus restricting freedom of religion.

Madison wrote in objection to Religious proclamations of the executive:

"The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities..."

"They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion."

"the core of Obama's faith-based initiative looks pretty much identical to the deeply problematic one created by President George W. Bush."

And the core of Obama's war on terror looks pretty much identical to the highly successful one created by George W. Bush.

You've been lied to, Liberals. First you lied to yourselves about how awful GWB was. Then you let Obama lie to you when he made a bunch of campaign promises that - if he had carried them out - would have doomed him politically and made him an unsuccessful President.

Highly-religious and culturally conservatives African-Americans are one of President Obama's core constituencies. Atheists aren't. He's not going to slap the African-American community in the face just to please the atheists.

Sorry, it's true. Get over it and move on.

Susan Jacoby:

"I wish that those of you who use the term "christer" would stop doing it. It's insulting to Christian believers."

I like the word 'christer'. I will use it. If you don't like it, don't use it.

The letter urged the president to prohibit religious organizations from discrimination in hiring in federally funded social projects and ensure that those who turn to faith-based services are not subjected to unwanted proselytizing or religious activities as a condition of receiving aid.

As long as the religious organizations abide by those rules, I see no constitutional problem with the grants. The larger issue is why the program targets only religious charities and discriminates against secular ones. Programs like this should be open to all charities regardless of affiliation.