When the Salvation Army enlists in the government

Please help us identify how the fortune given to nonprofits when Blue Cross sold how - how save are being used?
The War Widows
mmurphy@veteranschamberofcommerce.org
Mary Murphy former VA/Prison Chaplain/Marshal Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
www.veteranschamberofcommerce.org whose members are Veteran Incarcerated studying business ownership so, upon re-entry, they can help change the prison system.

how same are being used

Luckily this is already the case for the many Christian non-profits whose very faith traditions recognize grace and faith comes from God and not by force and believe that peoples' understanding of God, grace and faith comes from the relief of suffering and acts of charity.
Given that these messages run so deep in the Christian tradition (in the varied attempts to reconcile of faith and works), I'm skeptical of why so many opponents of faith-based initiatives believe the opposite is true. And I certainly hope this distorted view is not used as cover to place additional burdens upon some of the most effective and efficient organizations in the relief of suffering of those most in need.
Nonetheless I understand why some opponents hold such a view. There have been cases of force and overzealous attempts to undermine peoples' conscious in spite of the very teachings and core principles of faith. I encourage such organizations that deny their own faith and the conscious of others to reconcile themselves to God in faith before an incompassionate systematic body takes its attempt at vengeance here on earth.

Or, I should add provide cover for the calling of resources and people to be transferred to organizations owned by opponents of faith-based initiatives that may seek greater profits, political power or ability to proselytize or demean the dignity of those merely seeking relief of suffering.

I have personally worked in Rescue Missions as a former Christian minister. I get very irritated whenever secular sources theoretically step in between people of need and those trying to satisfy that need! If secular minded folks are so concerned....build your own shelters and soup kitchens! This is nothing more than political posturing that serves to thwart the common good!

Perhaps I'm the only secular advocate that challenges what I consider to be a weak arguementation against faith based initiatives. I think those in opposition have short-sighted secular biases that frankly I would love to publically debate and expose. I have addressed a portion of this issue at my website...funny but those same folks that love to question everything suddenly don't have an answer!

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/awardees 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
"

More on World Vision, one of the larger grantees in the Faith and Community Partnership progam noted above:

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 2008 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. Of course, Kobe Bryant makes substantially more and does little for the world other than being one heck of a basketball player.

Aren't there ways to "preach the gospel" and "meet human needs" without proselytizing?

I would dial the question back further and ask whether it's wrong for any religious organization to proselytize in the first place. When groups like the Salvation Army include proselytizing with the assistance, it's like they're helping people on their own terms, instead of on the terms of the people being helped. This is almost like conditional love. Do such groups really care about the people they help, or do they see them as simply notches on their conversion belts?

For those that are concerned about faith-based initiatives and the amounts of tax funded dollars that they are receiving; perhaps what you should be concerned with is the loss of charitable dollars that to varying degrees supplement, match or overwhelm the tax revenues given in order to provide for the recipients of the organization.

Why does/did the government use faith-based initiatives in the first place?
1.) They were already doing it. They had experience in providing for charitable needs, and generally, because of that experience, they remained the best at doing it.
2.) They do it cheaper. Never underestimate the power of the Christian volunteer. They work for love and compassion, not a paycheck.
3.) They collect charitable funds that are not tax mandated, that augment the government supply.

Of course, we could allow the government to do it all for us. We wouldn't have to get personal with the recipients - just let our tax dollars be the connection. It would demand professionals with heavy caseloads and several layers of government oversight committees, with government salaries, demanding higher taxes to support a burgeoning bureaucracy. But hey! At least they wouldn't be proselytizing people.

Interesting that Christian conservatives are so insistent that none of their tax money fund abortion, but have no problem using my tax money to fund religious organizations who espouse views contrary to my own. Would they have a different view if, say, tax money was going a radial Muslim humanitarian project?

DougInMoz,

We can't assume that a government charity program would automatically be inefficient. Nor we can assume that a faith-based charity would be efficient. Another concern is whether the charity would show favorable treatment to clients who share its beliefs. Few would claim that the Baptist missionaries in Haiti deliberately intended to kidnap kids for some nefarious purpose. It was probably a combination of religious zealotry and cultural bias leading them to simply assume that the kids needed to be rescued from a "heathen" culture.

About why the faith-based program exists, Bush was using the charity approach when he was governor of Texas, for counseling programs of prison inmates. With both this and the national initiative, it would be hard to criticize the intention to help people. But Bush's intentions are questionable with both programs, since these were heavily focused on fundamentalist Christians charities. It gave the impression that the programs were really political patronage, something that numerous politicians in both parties have practiced.

This is a problem. We need to fix it by getting the government out of the charity business altogether. If people want to keep starving children off the street, they should do it with private funds, not public funds.

We can't let religion-rooted charitable impulses infect our secular government.

It is hard for religious charities to be trusted to not proselytize. As a young sailor (during the Vietnam era) on leave in Washington, D.C, I heard about a place where they were giving free lunch to servicemen. It sounded pretty good, so I and a couple of buddies searched out and found the location. The food was set up on a table in the middle of a large auditorium. The lunch consisted of deviled ham on stale white bread and Kool-aid. It wasn't that appetizing, but it was free, so who could complain. Well, the food wasn't exactly free. As we came close to finishing our meal, we heard the double doors to the hall slam shut, and someone said in a loud voice, "OK boys, time for the sermon," or something to that effect. To pay for our meal we had to sit through a 20 minute sermon. Sorry, but being led into being preached to by deceit is wrong. Instead of charity, the servants of God were "paying" or obligating us to hear their spiel. In consonance with the Law of Unintended consequences, such duplicity probably turned away more potential converts than they brought into the fold. such More often than not the “charity” of religious groups comes with strings attached. It is a well know fact that many Christian orphanages in developing countries take in children only if they accept conversion. India has a serious problem today in the Goa area due to this. The history of the spread of Christianity has been that of missionaries following right on the heels of invading conquerors and aiding devastated indigenous communities, but at a price; to get the help of these servants of God, the natives had to give up their own religions and customs. This is not charity.

Does no one see the irony in throttling the very faith that makes faith-based organizations effective? That gives them the motivation to serve in the darkest corners of society where others won't bother to dirty their hands?

Contrary to what seems a prevailing view, posturing about neeting social needs and genuine action are not the same thing.

By and large, faith serves the common good. Fine that government should not establish religion - we do not need state religious institutions - but neither should it hinder the leavening good of faith in our society.

1. The Salvation Army has tons of funds from the Ray Kroc/McDonald's Restaurant fortune.

2. Bush lost for Republicans the 1st day it occurred to people that hurricane Katrina response was a good job (Browny).

When is comes to helping people in needed, the government, the association that includes all Americans is the best user of collective tax dollars despite the old joke; We've been appointed to these politcal positions by Republicans; we're here to help.

Can church be state? NO! IT TIME TO ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAW OF TAX EXAMPT AS WELL AS REWRITE IT REQUIRE ALL THAT CLAIM TAX EXAMPT ALSO FILE TAX AND CLAIM THEIR GROUP'S CLAIM OF TAX EXAMPT ON THE IRS 1040 FORM SO THAT THE IRS KNOW THEIR INCOME OF THE GIVEN YEAR AND CAN REQUIRE THEM TO PAY TAX IF THEY VIOLATED THE TAX EXAMPT RULES. TOTAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE USA REQUIRES TO FULLY PAY YOUR JUST TAX.

I have personally worked in Rescue Missions as a former Christian minister. I get very irritated whenever secular sources theoretically step in between people of need and those trying to satisfy that need! If secular minded folks are so concerned....build your own shelters and soup kitchens! This is nothing more than political posturing that serves to thwart the common good!
-------------------------------------------
We sectarians have. Food stamps, housing, medical services--all the things the Republicans want to get rid of. Some of the things sectarians do are forward thinking. One goes like this: Old people often can't earn money in the labor market--> Social Security.

I see no constitutional problem with faith charities getting government money, as long as three conditions are met:

1. The government doesn't discriminate among the faith charities, or doesn't discriminate between faith and secular charities.

2. The faith charities don't use the money to proselytize.

3. The faith charities don't discriminate in providing services and in hiring employees.

"The agreement just effects [sic] the Salvation Army's social work..."

It's called the English language. Look into it.

David Waters is brilliant, isn't he? He thinks separation of church and state has to do with Jesus. He doesn't want to talk about Allah, or Mohammed, or Bhudda, or Confucius, just Jesus. And David worries about the Salvation Army "Imposing religion"religion on somebody?? David says you can act like Jesus without talking about him. Brilliant David. "Look over there! Juanita is acting like a prophet who lived 2,000 years ago! Isn't she wonderful!" What's the name of the prophet?" "Can't say, but trust me, she's acting like it!"

"To act like Jesus rather than talk about him?"

Why is helping people "acting like Jesus" and not just doing the right thing? Why do Christians always believe that doing the right thing depends on their dogma? Why are they this selfish?

I want NONE of my tax dollars to go to faith-based institutions, programs, etc. If you want to give your money to them, do so. I don't want to, and my wishes should be respected by my government.

My thoughts:
1. Obviously, the idea of the separation of church and state has been drilled into us since grade school. By and large, this idea is a good thing. As a Christian, I would never want to force Christianity on anyone. That would go against everything Christianity is about. In the past, many have tried to force their religion (and yes, almost all major religions, not just Christianity, have done this). Clearly, it was not a good idea then and will not be now.
2. Although the idea of the separation of church and stae is a good idea...one must wonder what that acutally must entail. I think to an extent it is impossible to completely separate the two and it isn't a good idea to strive for that. Faith is a part of every human's life whether you want to admit it or not. Even an athiest has a belief system, a world view if you will. They place their fath in that worldview. To attempt to completely eliminate that would be wrong, in a very human way.
3. Christian organizations have done a lot of good in the past and continue to do so now. While there are some examples of secular charitable organizations, no one can deny that Christianity has really been the leader of the pack when it comes to charitable organizations. This does have EVERYTHING to do with Christianity, which teaches love to everyone (regardless of their faith/religion). So, since Christians have been at the forefront of the charitable organizations, and do a lot of good for the world, it only makes sense that our government would want to help those charities...which in turn help society as a whole..yes even those who practice a different faith.
4. Handing out paperwork or asking someone to sit through a 20 minute service is not necessarily proselytizing. The person did not have to accept help from that organization and they do not have to accept the message that the organization teaches. I don't think that it is fair to say that an organzition cannot give their point of view at all. But as I meantioned in point #1, forcing their faith is another issue and should not be tolerated.
5. I agree with the above post that the government shouldn't discriminate between charitable and secular charities and that the charities shouldn't discriminate against those in need. I think a charity has the right to hire employees that enhance their charitable work.

They don't stop, do they?

Look for that published long list of Ear Marks for various senators and cities that was published couple years ago.

SO many EarMarks everywhere were for Jewish Social Services. THAT's okay, but
America's beloved Salvation Army is not?

And the SA better be careful, from now on, when it goes to set up coffee, etc., at some fire or flood, that nobody they help on the street is a Jew.

Aren't there ways to "preach the gospel" and "meet human needs" without proselytizing?

The answer is attributed to St. Francis of Assisi: "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words."

"Effect of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on Faith-Based Applicants for Grants

If your organization is a faith-based organization that makes hiring decisions on the basis of religious belief, it may be entitled, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, to receive federal funds and yet maintain that hiring practice, even if the law creating the funding program contains a general ban on religious discrimination in employment. For the circumstances under which this may occur, and the certifications that may be required by the Department of Justice, please see the “Effect of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on Faith-Based Applicants for Grants.”

For a fuller discussion of the issue, please see the Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel, Office of Justice Programs, dated June 29, 2007. "

Its impossible to justify the Federal Government subcontracting their responsibilities to churches and faith based organizations.

Cutting checks to churches justifies the overthrow of the US Government as we know it.

Well, Kenk, good thing that charity isn't one of the Federal Government's responsibilities. The Govt. needs to get out of the charity business since it doesn't belong there in the first place.

Thomas Jefferson wisely warned us, but Christians have been the most numerous and entrenched of any religion since the Birth of the Nation. During my childhood (1930's and 40's) no one would have blinked at the Salvation Army's or Catholic's or any other Christian charity proselytize as they provide succor.
Now, with a pluralistic society and several different religious faiths, including no faith, we are at a point where it is important to adhere to the Separation of Church and State. No particular religious charity should be permitted to superimpose their beliefs on anyone in exchange for charitable help.

Aren't there ways to "preach the gospel" and "meet human needs" without proselytizing?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I would dial the question back further and ask whether it's wrong for any religious organization to proselytize in the first place. When groups like the Salvation Army include proselytizing with the assistance, it's like they're helping people on their own terms, instead of on the terms of the people being helped. This is almost like conditional love. Do such groups really care about the people they help, or do they see them as simply notches on their conversion belts?
Posted by: Carstonio | February 22, 2010 6:23 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Conditional love,” excellent observation.

One of the destructive aspects of when government takes over the charity business is that conditional love is thrown out. Unconditional aid and assistance is terribly un-healthy and socially destructive. Twisting charitable assistance into some sort of “right” is one of the worst problems modern society has.

I think to an extent it is impossible to completely separate the two and it isn't a good idea to strive for that.

Describing it as "church and state" is somewhat misleading because the former term is not used by religions other than Christianity. My preferred term is "government neutrality among religions." You're right that government cannot avoid a total disengagement. An example would be the religious symbols on the tombstones of fallen service members - this involves government being in the unavoidable position of determining what qualifies as a religion.

So, since Christians have been at the forefront of the charitable organizations, and do a lot of good for the world, it only makes sense that our government would want to help those charities

When government treats the charities equally, it's likely that most of the money would naturally flow to Christian charities for that reason. There's nothing wrong or unconstitutional with that. The problem would be if government chose to favor Christian charities because they're Christian.

Handing out paperwork or asking someone to sit through a 20 minute service is not necessarily proselytizing.

You're right about the former but wrong about the latter. Why have the person sit through a service if the intent isn't to try to persuade the person to convert? That in itself is not a constitutional complaint. Why do the groups insist on trying to win converts in the first place? Why should their clients' religious affiliations matter to the groups? Isn't it wrong or deceptive to give people aid while wanting them to convert? It may not be coercive but it still seems underhanded.

Unconditional aid and assistance is terribly un-healthy and socially destructive. Twisting charitable assistance into some sort of “right” is one of the worst problems modern society has.

Without taking issue with that, I wasn't talking about unconditional assistance, or suggesting that charity be treated as a right. I would agree in principle that some ways of providing charity may cause harm to people or communities. But I was criticizing the attitude that something is wrong with people who don't share the religious group's beliefs, that the people need to be "fixed." I'm talking about the specific condition where the group has the advance agenda of trying to change the clients' beliefs.

It is inherently wrong to use taxpayer dollars for religious proselytizing. It is robbing the ethics of our nation to force people to support religions that they are opposed to.

Without taking issue with that, I wasn't talking about unconditional assistance, or suggesting that charity be treated as a right. I would agree in principle that some ways of providing charity may cause harm to people or communities. But I was criticizing the attitude that something is wrong with people who don't share the religious group's beliefs, that the people need to be "fixed." I'm talking about the specific condition where the group has the advance agenda of trying to change the clients' beliefs.
Posted by: Carstonio | February 22, 2010 3:03 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I don’t think I agree with you, Carstonio. Proselytizing can be harmful or helpful, depending on the beliefs being peddled. Some beliefs are probably pretty harmless. I imagine the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would neither be able to hurt or help anyone, regardless of how aggressively they peddled their beliefs.

The problem is, of course, that there is no centralized control over what beliefs get proselytized. Suppose that the faith-based social services initiative were placed under the control of the Bureau of Official Opinions (“BOO”), which decided which beliefs charities are permitted to peddle while performing social services with government funds. BOO would then decide which beliefs are secular and good (drinking too much is bad for your complexion) and which beliefs are religious and bad (thou shalt avoid the demon rum). Oops, BOO sounds like an established religion to me.

I say we cancel the whole idea and get the government out of the charity business altogether.

May you walk forever in the shadow of His noodly appendages, Ramen.

From the Department of Commerce:

"Is there money set aside for Faith-Based Organizations?

Answer:

No. The Federal government does not set aside a separate funding stream specifically for faith-based groups. Rather, they are eligible to apply for government grants on an equal basis with other similar non-governmental organizations."

"What are the rules for the use of Federal funding by faith-based organizations?

Answer:

Grant funds may not be used for inherently religious activities such as worship, prayer, proselytizing, or devotional Bible study.

The funds are to be used to further the objectives established by Congress such as creating the conditions for economic growth and prosperity.

A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship or instruction are separate–in time or location–from the government-funded services that it offers.

However, you may use space in your church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship to provide Federally-funded services. In addition, there is no need to remove religious symbols from these rooms.

You may also keep your organization's name even if it includes religious words, and you may include religious references in your organization's mission statements. If you have any questions or doubts, you should check with the official who administers your Federal funds."

Time for me to sound even more like a short wave radio listening crank.

there is a dynamic here that is very disturbing. It is clear to me that Obama will tax everything he can imagine. he will work hard to structure the tax code such that "charity" is replaced by government dollars.

when that happens the folks in DC get to decide who gets what when and under what circumstances.

In addition when one looks at the track record of expensive government programs one sees failure. People are mired in poverty now for no other reason than their dependance on government handouts.

So the threat to religion in America is clear: when taxes are enormously high, as they will be with Barry O's administration, the disposable income available for charitable giving will decline. Replacing effective private efforts with ineffective, inefficient government programs will damage our society and eliminate one of the foundational pillars of our strength.

And for what? so that people like carstonio can feel righteous? wow. An entire society based on godless nihilism would be good for no one yet the sophistry lace arguments against a strong place for religion in American life carry on unabated.

We are, IMHO, failing as a society because we have turned our backs on God.

Proselytizing can be harmful or helpful, depending on the beliefs being peddled.

True. I wasn't arguing that all proselytizing was harmful. I was arguing that proselytizing goes against the principles of individual conscience and individual self-determination. Ultimately, only you (the hypothetical you and the ZZim you) can decide as an individual what beliefs you hold. Obviously people can talk about their beliefs and what they mean to them, but that's not the same as having an agenda to change everyone else's beliefs.

Suppose that the faith-based social services initiative were placed under the control of the Bureau of Official Opinions (“BOO”), which decided which beliefs charities are permitted to peddle while performing social services with government funds.

That's a bit of a reach. Hypothetically, why not just establish a rule that the charities can't peddle any beliefs with the government money, but offer aid only? The larger issue is that the charities (some of them, anyway) may be using the aid as a pretext for peddling beliefs.

I say we cancel the whole idea and get the government out of the charity business altogether.

I wouldn't object to that. I was operating from the assumption that we're stuck with the faith-based program, and that if we have to have it, we should make sure it abides by the Constitution.

so that people like carstonio can feel righteous?

Where do you come up with stuff like "godless nihilism"? I never advocated "replacing effective private efforts with ineffective, inefficient government programs." Nor do I advocate removing any or all religion from society. I cannot stress enough that government is not society. The only issue here is making sure that government doesn't play favorites among religions. Government has no business taking a position on whether any gods exist, or which gods exist. Religion's place in American life is actually strengthened when government stays neutral on religious matters. One can argue that the history of state religions in Europe has led to the decline of faith there, because people grow to associate religion with a civic obligation. Arguing that government needs to endorse a specific religion is like arguing that a football referee needs to wear the jersey of one of the teams in the game in order to bolster fan spirit.

Posted by: Emmetrope
Old people often can't earn money in the labor market--> Social Security.
-----------------------
Incorrect. Up to the "full" retirement age, income is limited to about $12K/yr. After that, no limit.
Why must some people make such uninformed comments to make their arguments?

If you "act like Jesus" people that you help will learn to do the same even without you telling them that's what you are doing. I don't think Jesus took government money to help the needy.

it is simple carstonio. On every thread of this ilk you're on the side opposite religion.

That's where I come up with this stuff.

I am totally against the government giving money to charities - no matter how wonderful these charities are. Under Bush we were moving towards a state religion. I don't think most people realize how far the previous administration went. Millions of dollars were transferred away from poor people and channeled to churches who then used the money to run marriage counseling for middle class recipients and making the counseling firms wealthy on our dime.

By the way, how many people did Salvation Army fire because of their religion (Jewish and Catholic) and sexual orientation? No! NO tax dollars for discrimination and stae religion.

1 - I wasn't arguing that all proselytizing was harmful. I was arguing that proselytizing goes against the principles of individual conscience and individual self-determination. Ultimately, only you (the hypothetical you and the ZZim you) can decide as an individual what beliefs you hold. Obviously people can talk about their beliefs and what they mean to them, but that's not the same as having an agenda to change everyone else's beliefs.

2 - That's a bit of a reach. Hypothetically, why not just establish a rule that the charities can't peddle any beliefs with the government money, but offer aid only? The larger issue is that the charities (some of them, anyway) may be using the aid as a pretext for peddling beliefs.

3 - I say we cancel the whole idea and get the government out of the charity business altogether.
I wouldn't object to that. I was operating from the assumption that we're stuck with the faith-based program, and that if we have to have it, we should make sure it abides by the Constitution.

Posted by: Carstonio | February 22, 2010 4:15 PM
=-=-==-=-==-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
Response to 1: Well if nobody is allowed to proselytize, then how will ideas spread? Should all debates be outlawed? I really don’t have any worries regarding street-corner preachers and the like. I suppose if someone said “I will feed you if you pray with me,” then that would be a problem. I’d probably beat him up.

Response to 2: Can we allow them to peddle the belief that “getting stinko drunk on the rent money and beating your wife is bad?”

Response to 3: I’m an outside-the-box thinker. =)

"I get very irritated whenever secular sources theoretically step in between people of need and those trying to satisfy that need!"

And I get very irritated when religious sources try to justify their forcing their faith on vulnerable people by saying that at least they're "satisfying their needs".

The mean side of me hopes that if you're ever in need of food or shelter, the only charity available requires you to pray five times a day in Arabic, in the direction of Mecca, and to affirm that Muhammed is the prophet of God.

You wouldn't have to accept their help, mind you. You could sleep outside in the snow and go hungry. But that's OK, right? They're trying to help, so they have the right to coerce you to go against your own religious beliefs in favor of theirs. It's poor people's own fault they're poor, after all, right? No one ever has a financial or health catastrophe that isn't of their own making.

Oh, and if you needed medical help, you'd get intrusive and personal questions designed to make sure that all your reproductive and sexual choices agreed with their religion. No choosing a wife they disapprove of, or having more or fewer children than they allow, or acting as if your body was your own property.

"An entire society based on godless nihilism would be good for no one yet the sophistry lace arguments against a strong place for religion in American life carry on unabated."

Actually, those countries who are less publicly and privately religious are also those where the poor tend to be better cared for, where health care is readily available for all, etc., etc., etc.

"Well, Kenk, good thing that charity isn't one of the Federal Government's responsibilities. The Govt. needs to get out of the charity business since it doesn't belong there in the first place.
POSTED BY: ZZIM"

As a Christian and worker in the non-profit world, I can't help but agree.

It's one thing to regulate NFPs or to study their programs, it's another to make them dependent upon the grants and their endless, confusing rules that increase administrative and support service costs and help undermine effective service.
And that's exactly what the non-profit world has become. Dependent on grants.

However, such a strategy would serve to a detriment these organizations and the poor without additional changes to the tax code and the appropriations process in Washington and local government. We need to get back to promoting and allowing for charity, not funding and directing charity.

Why the issue?
As long as the "church or faith based" group in question does not dictate that a faith belief is required to receive their services there should be no issue.

Carstonio wants:
"1. The government doesn't discriminate among the faith charities, or doesn't discriminate between faith and secular charities.
2. The faith charities don't use the money to proselytize.
3. The faith charities don't discriminate in providing services and in hiring employees."

You'd be happy to know that existing OMB circulars ensure all those things. (Although it's iffy on the last part - understandably because the employees also funded by other sources as well or serve in other capacities or are drawn from and hired from a selective pool faithful to the organization's mission just as in the case of any organization or business.)

You'd also be happy to know that the religious beliefs of many faiths, particular the Jewish and Christians, uphold all those ideals. In the Christian tradition, it is believed that faith can not be forced upon someone, but it is a gift from God to which we are called to consciously know as well as provide the opportunity to know. As such organizations find value in secular programs that work and do not see them as competition but partners in serving man. This also relates to #2. To some, they find it pastorally appropriate to utilize preaching. Fully respecting that it is a opportunity to share and call forth people to act upon their own conscious to listen, understand and follow, not to force them. Many organizations don't proselytize. Especially those involved with social justice and social services often believe the opportunity comes through love, charity and the removing of ones' afflictions to allow them to see love, charity and God in the world. I stand firmly with the latter, but don't necessarily think you can get around some preaching in social services all the time. Many secular organizations often can't avoid their own form of preaching.

Also, the faithful will never turn down a neighbor in need. That's a large part of their mission and why they're already involved in social services. However, some services and some statements are precluded should they are go against their conscious of the service provider. (See recent DC City Council controversy.)

it is simple carstonio. On every thread of this ilk you're on the side opposite religion.

That's where I come up with this stuff. Posted by: skipsailing28

I have to defend carstonio. IMO, he/she is amazingly consistent in appropriately defending the doctrine of church/state separation. If he/she is seen to take a position seemingly against a religion or religions, I'll bet dollars to donuts it's because the religion or religions in question have taken a position contrary to a secular interpretation of the first amendment.

"faith based organizations"? Sounds like they are taxpayer based to me.

Anyone who has dealt with these organizations knows how they operate--hand and hand with the politicians who legislated all that taxpayer money to them.

I no longer frequent any faith based organizations because they are all paid shills for the gop and tin-foil hat people.

This sounds like government trying to piggy-back on religious people in order to save costs. Everyone knows that a religous person who is motivated by religious faith will likely do more work than a person who is doing a job. Yet the government wants to receive all the advantages of having religious people do the work while prohibiting them from being religious people.

SkipSailing,

On every thread of this ilk you're on the side opposite religion.

First, it's a mistake to treat these issues as binary with one position favoring religion and one position opposing it. Questioning the existence of the supernatural does not equate to opposing religion. On many of these threads I've criticized atheists who use insulting terms to describe believers.

Second, defending the principle of church/state separation is a defense of individual religious freedom. That separation protects religion just as much as it protects government.

ZZim,

Well if nobody is allowed to proselytize, then how will ideas spread? Should all debates be outlawed?

I never called for banning that type of speech. What I'm criticizing is the stance that people of other religions should switch to one's own religion. That's my own issue and I certainly don't want to make that speech illegal. I have no issue with people promoting their own religions in a non-should way.

Can we allow them to peddle the belief that “getting stinko drunk on the rent money and beating your wife is bad?”

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If the charities are taking government money, then using that money to promote their beliefs is Constitutionally problematic.

CPRFerry, thanks for the information.

don't necessarily think you can get around some preaching in social services all the time.

While you may be right, would you explain?

However, some services and some statements are precluded should they are go against their conscious of the service provider. (See recent DC City Council controversy.)

I never understood that controversy. It doesn't make sense that someone would see the behavior of others as going against his own conscience. If I as a hall owner rent space for a gay wedding, or I as an employer provide benefits to gay married employees, that doesn't mean I would turn gay. Nor would it mean that withholding those services would turn them straight. I could see the point if we were talking about renting the halls for ritual murders or something.

Cornbread,

If he/she is seen to take a position seemingly against a religion or religions, I'll bet dollars to donuts it's because the religion or religions in question have taken a position contrary to a secular interpretation of the first amendment.

I would clarify that those particular religions have taken a position against the whole concept of religion-neutral government. Read about Christian Domionism - although it doesn't seek an Iran-style theocracy, it would amount to tossing the First Amendment out the window.

Discriminating and harming innocent gay and lesbian people is not, has never been, and never will be the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What ACLU should do is make their own charity organization and see if it works using their godless principles.

Im not so sure how much would remain for the children after paying the salaries of their workers.

Stupidity is self-destructive and the ACLU are morons in action.

Carstonio should read about American history to know how the First Amendment took shape. It was established to protect the persecuted evangelical Christians from government abuses.

The ACLU is now using the same law to persecute the religious people thru the government.

The idiots in the early days of America are here again.

Somewhat off topic-

The ACLU has approximately $230 million in stocks, bonds and mutual funds. As with all non-profits, the ACLU does not pay any federal taxes on the dividends, interest and capital gains on these investments.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2008/136/213/2008-136213516-04a87fb7-9.pdf

Leave it to the Leftists to bewail the hundreds of thousands of people served by the Salvation Army while they themselves never do anything for anyone (except try to tell them how to spend what others have earned).

Typical.

My wife and I gave generously to the Salvation Army for many years, as did my conservative 93 year old father-in-law. They were/are doing good work and it wasn't glamourous, and indeed charitable. But as the religious Christian right became more outrageous, political and strident about the Christian evangelizing part of their faith, we stopped giving, as did my father-in-law.

Conservatives should be very clear about where their loyalties lie; the Constitution clearly requires the separation of church and state. And if they want no taxpayer money used for abortions then they should also understand that no taxpayer money should be used for religious activities. Period.

The problem with most modern day conservatives is that they are inconsistent, hypocritical, have divided loyalties and flexible principles, and little respect for the beliefs of people who disagree with them. Afterall, beliefs are beliefs and not facts, despite the arrogance which lets them transform their belief in such frequently modified books as the Bible into facts and God's principles.

There are many books that explain how dubious the factual contents of the Bible are, being translated between various Aramaic texts, Greek, Latin and other languages by various flawed humans over the last few thousand years, including some and eliminating others into a compilation. And today there is the new American project - the Conservative Bible - to again alter the text of the Bible. It's all so foolish and disastrous for determining what Jesus really stood for, and he certainly did not beleieve in the terrible things so many modern "Christians" believe in.

"Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words." - Francesco d'Assisi

There should not be any government money going to churches or faith-based organizations. Period.

fr whistling:

>...And the SA better be careful, from now on, when it goes to set up coffee, etc., at some fire or flood, that nobody they help on the street is a Jew.

Or a gay person. The SA won't employ glbt's, so my wife and I do NOT support them.

carstonio I'm simply not buying your sophistry. I've seen too much of it.

The simple fact is, as I stated, in any discussion of religion in American life you'll be on the side opposing religion.
It is really simple. The motivations you allege are meaningless. Cloaking yourself in the flag is the act of a scoundrel.

The simple fact is, as I stated, in any discussion of religion in American life you'll be on the side opposing religion.

Please stop framing issues such as this as "for" or "against" religion. I can see how it would be easy to get that mistaken impression, since many of the OnFaith threads devolve into name-calling between fundamentalist Christians and fanatical atheists. (Both sides seem to treat "Christianity" and "religion" as the same thing as if other religions didn't exist.) But First Amendment issues are not about choosing sides. They're not about what role religion should have in American life outside the realm of government.

Although I have questioned claims about the supernatural, I have not condemned or opposed religion in general, which is not the same thing. I take strong exception to the claims by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that all of religion is bad. The specific point I've been making in this thread is that it's NOT anti-religion to say that government should be neutral on religious matters. I say that what role or influence religion plays in the non-governmental part of American life is ultimately up to believers as individuals or in groups. I take no stance as to whether the influence of any particular religion in that part of American life is a good or bad thing, because that's not my call. My main interest is in defending individual conscience. It's not my business to tell anyone that he should or shouldn't belong to Religion X, Y or Z.

Can we allow them to peddle the belief that “getting stinko drunk on the rent money and beating your wife is bad?”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If the charities are taking government money, then using that money to promote their beliefs is Constitutionally problematic.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The question is, who decides what beliefs can be taught? If the charity operates a women’s shelter and teaches the women that God wants them to return to their husbands, is that bad? If the same charity teaches them that God loves them and doesn’t want them to be beaten, is that bad? Or can the charity only teach them that Penal Code Section 5A.10096 (a)(ii) says that “one co-habitant may not use undue force in a situation in which said force is undue due to the not-necessary nature of the incurring event based on eventualitative severity of regarding entenuations… etc.”

carstonio I disagree with your fundamental assertion that first amendment discussions are not about chosing sides. Perhaps your belief in this misguided position provides you some measure of comfort but I'm not buying it.

Why not stop trying to have it both ways and face it: you are consistently antagonistic toward faith and people who profess that faith. Cloak it however you find convenient but don't expect the folks who read your comments here to agree with you.

The Salvation Army with its religious base does not have to submit a IRS Form 990 but their SA Worldwide Service Unit (SAWSO) apparently does so anyway

"Founded in 1977, SAWSO provides technical and financial assistance in a variety of community-based programs and works through the Army's worldwide network of personnel and facilities in 105 countries. Program areas include health care, HIV/AIDS programming, micro-finance, community development, and relief and reconstruction aid. SAWSO also works toward increasing the capacity of Salvation Army personnel to develop and implement effective programs to alleviate poverty. SAWSO is celebrating its 30th year in 2007."

The SAWSO reported spending ~$24 million on various reconstruction and relief services around the world in the 2007-2008 time IRS reporting time period. This is the same group that is handling the SA's Haiti reconstruction and relief effort.

This made the SA very happy:

"Salvation Army Receives $1.5-Billion Donation From McDonald's Heiress"

With respect to the Haiti relief effort:

"The Salvation Army had raised $10.8-million as of February 17."

Cronicle of Philantropy
Also this:

"American Charities Raise $774-Million for Haiti Relief, Chronicle Tally Finds
Five weeks after the devastating earthquake in Haiti donors have contributed more than $774-million to support relief efforts.

Aid to Haiti got a big lift from a star-studded telethon that was broadcast on major television networks in January. Donations made in response to the telethon totaled $66-million, and organizers awarded $35-million in grants on February 5."

God Bless America!!!

Passing the plate for Haiti (besides the over $400 million contributed by the USA taxpayers)

Some of the bigger donations:

From the Chronicle of Philantropy

• The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee had raised approximately $5.5-million as of February 17.

• American Jewish World Service had raised $5-million as of February 2 for its Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund.

• American Red Cross had raised approximately $276-million as of February 16, including $6-million from last month’s Hope for Haiti telethon. More than $32-million was pledged to the Red Cross via text message.

• AmeriCares had raised more than $10-million as of February 16.

• CARE USA had raised $12-million as of February 17.

• Catholic Medical Mission Board had raised $1.3-million in cash as of February 3. The organization has also received donations of medicines and medical supplies worth $10.6-million.

• Catholic Relief Services had secured $60.4-million in gifts and pledges as of February 17.

• The Clinton Bush Haiti Fund had raised more than $40-million as of February 11.

• The William J. Clinton Foundation had received more than $11.9-million as of February 11.

• The Doctors Without Borders U.S. operations had raised $50.2-million for work in Haiti as of February 17. The organization had also received $16.2-million for its general Emergency Relief Fund.

• Friends of the World Food Program had raised $10.3-million, including $6-million from last month’s Hope for Haiti Now telethon, as of February 17.

continued below:

• International Medical Corps had raised more than $5-million as of February 17.

• Mennonite Central Committee had raised more than $3.2-million from donors in the United States as of February 12. The group had raised another $5.1-million in Canada.

• Mercy Corps had received $11.6-million as of February 16.

• Oxfam America had received $21.5-million as of February 16, $8-million of which came from last month’s Hope for Haiti Now telethon.

• Partners in Health had received donations totaling $56-million as of February 15, including $8-million from last month’s Hope for Haiti Now telethon.

• Project HOPE had raised $1.25-million in cash and pledges as of February 2. Corporations have pledged more than $20-million in medicine and medical equipment.

• The Salvation Army had raised $10.8-million as of February 17.

• Save the Children USA had raised $18.2-million as of February 17. The organization’s international affiliates had raised $48-million.

• The United Methodist Committee on Relief had raised $11-million as of February 12.

• The University of Miami had received $4.4-million as of February 17 for its relief efforts in Haiti. The university runs a community health program and other projects in Haiti, and more than 100 of its doctors, nurses, and other staff members have traveled to Haiti since the earthquake.

• The U.S. Fund for Unicef had received $49.1-million in cash and pledges as of February 17. That figure includes $6-million contributed as part of the Haiti telethon.

• World Vision’s U.S. operations had received $27.6-million in cash as of February 17.
"

Interesting to see that many of these groups are faith-based.

Years ago I was dirt poor, nothing to eat, homeless. The Salvation Army took care of me and got me back on my feet. If they want to get excited over Mr. Jesus....fine with me!

Why not stop trying to have it both ways and face it: you [carstonio] are consistently antagonistic toward faith and people who profess that faith. Cloak it however you find convenient but don't expect the folks who read your comments here to agree with you. Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 23, 2010 3:03 PM

1. If what you allege is true, it should be pathetically easy to provide evidence for your assertion. My dollars to donuts wager stands.

2. You don't speak for me.

3. How do you account for the religious people who also oppose the lack of transparency, employment discrimination and proselytizing found in some faith-based programs -- on First Amendment grounds?

"We need to fix it by getting the government out of the charity business altogether. If people want to keep starving children off the street, they should do it with private funds, not public funds."

Posted by: ZZim

ZZim, this would mean that the children would starve in the street. All throughout history, we went the "private funds" route, and we let kids, the elderly, the sick starve and die. Street urchins, elder poverty, and disabled beggars were so common as to be stereotypical before governmental intervention became common. If you want to see this in action, go to any third world country.

The cruel fact is we don't want the kids to starve, but we don't care enough to do much about it as individuals. The only thing that has worked consistently is governmental intervention. It works precisely because it's involuntary. Everybody pays in, so nobody has to pay too much, or, frankly, care too much. I don't like the fact much, either, but a look around the world, and into our own past, convinces me of the truth of it.

That stated, why would you believe that allowing kids, elders, sick folks, whoever, to simply suffer and die is better than governmental intervention?

"So the threat to religion in America is clear: when taxes are enormously high, as they will be with Barry O's administration, the disposable income available for charitable giving will decline. Replacing effective private efforts with ineffective, inefficient government programs will damage our society and eliminate one of the foundational pillars of our strength.We are, IMHO, failing as a society because we have turned our backs on God."

Posted by: skipsailing28

Skipsailing28, that's one of the most fact-free posts I've ever encountered. Going item at a time"

I have seen no plan for gross tax increases. Have you? No? Perhaps that's because there isn't one. Worrying about fantasies is one of the marks of those "short-wave radio listening cranks."

Private charities are not more efficient than governmental assistance. True, they don't pay as high a wage to their workers (with a few exceptions,) but the main "efficiency" is cherry picking. In other words, they often only elect to help people who are the easiest to help, leaving the government to pick up the difficult cases. As to ineffective, have you noticed how you don't see old people begging in the streets anymore? Social Security anyone? We no longer use orphaned children to clean chimneys either. I, personally, like it better this way.

As to turning our backs on God, I really don't get that. You seem to feel if you (Not God, you. God is not commenting on this blog.) aren't getting recognition as having the official "best belief in the world," you are somehow being treated disrespectfully. How? Your beliefs aren't being disrespected. You are just one more belief-system in the stew of culture. No one is discriminating against you. They just aren't bowing down to you. Why does that bother you?

In summary, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you sound like a "short-wave radio listening crank," you probably are one. You might want to look into that.

"Old people often can't earn money in the labor market--> Social Security.

Posted by: Emmetrope

"Incorrect. Up to the "full" retirement age, income is limited to about $12K/yr. After that, no limit.
Why must some people make such uninformed comments to make their arguments?"

Posted by: pjohn2

Pjohn2, I'm pretty sure that Emmetrope was referring to the frequent loss of strength and cognitive function that often accompanies aging, rather than Social Security regulations. Many people in their 60s and 70s simply aren't able to handle full-time work, as I'm sure you know.

hey GIMPI

Has Obama discussed reducing the exemption for charitable giving? Why yes he has.

Is he "agnostic" about tax increases? Why yes he is. What does that mean to you and I? More taxes if he has his way.

Where is the support for your "opinion" concerning America's private charities? Gosh, no link, no facts, nothing but your opinion. Oh that and some de rigeur liberal sneering. No liberal rant is complete without it. You missed points for condescencion though. Perhaps you should look into that.

The effectiveness of government programs is clear to those of us who live in the real world. SS cannot sustain itself. Neither can medicare or medicaid. How is that effective? What's the ratio of working stiffs to non producers in America today? What will it be in ten, twenty, thirty years? See my point?

Oh and how about those other bastions of liberal failure: TANF and section 8? I don't know where you live sonny but I live in the 'hood. What I see is permanent poverty brought to us by welfare dependency.

All these liberal transfer schemes have some common factors: (1) they rely on the ability to confiscate money from hard working, law abiding citizens. (2) They rely on this money to impose behavioral norms on the ultimate recipient. (3) They outlive whatever usefulness they might have once had. (4) Like vampires, they are extremely difficult to kill.

Now let me respond to your sneer about God. My comment has nothing to do with myself. I am proud of my faith and I stand up for it in places like this frequently. My comment relates to the trends in our society that make it clear to me (and many others) that we have abandonned the faith that helped us to greatness. That you want to personalize this merely displays your unwillingness to engage in a debate about God in our daily lives. Or that you don't want to discuss the role that faith played in our founding and our path to greatness.
That's not even a nice try.

Shame on you for that.

Again, you missed points for condescencion. I suggest that you read Joe Klein's diatribe, found at the following link, at least thirty times. That will provide you with insight into how a true sneering cynical liberal goes about insulting the people with whom he disagrees:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/25/too-dumb-to-thrive/

surely you can take lessons from a self indentified master of the genre, right?

Have a great day pal.

Skipsailing28,

I'm sorry you were offended. I took your use of the "short-wave radio listening crank" and played it back as a sort of literary devise. Since you had tossed it out, I didn't think you would take offense. I apologize if you did.

Now, to your points. President Obama's "agnosticism" aside, no massive tax increases have been proposed. Adjustments, changes in exemptions, yes, but no wholesale increases. I am concerned that obsessing about scary fantasies can lead to bad places. Considering the fellow who just crashed a plane into an IRS office in Texas, I don't think that fear is unfounded.

I only offered opinions because that was all I read in your post. If you want to offer facts, I would be happy to address them. Social Security and Medicare are facing demographic bubbles that are difficult to overcome, it's true, both those are due to the Baby Boom. After the boomers have passed on to their reward, things should be sustainable. We have many options to get through this bubble. We just need to explore them honestly.

Of course some governmental programs are corrupt. HUD is notorious for kickbacks and such. I fully support fixing them. I am interested in what works. Have you looked into the public housing in Italy? In India's new healthcare program? In Germany's old-age pension system? I think there are good ideas all over the world. I don't embrace or reject them out of hand because they are "socialist," or "not the way we do things." I also don't embrace or reject things based on political or religious dogma. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling you do.

I don't feel I sneered at God. I really feel I am not corresponding with God. I am corresponding with you. Perhaps your faith is so much a part of you that you don't see that. I don't really even know what you believe. As to God in daily life, I'm glad God is part of your life. I just don't see why you need to have the government, society, the law, whatever, tout your superiority. You are correct in that I don't want the law to endorse any religion as better than any other. Do you?

What faith "led us to greatness?" The U.S. has always been pluralistic. Or aren't you aware of the difference between the beliefs of Quakers and Puritans? The beliefs of enslaved Africans and the Natives? And greatness? We have accomplished great things, and done terrible things over the course of our history, and according to believers, God was on the side of both the great and terrible.

By "...missed points for condescension." I'm not sure if you feel I was condescending or not. If I seemed condescending, again, I apologize. It wasn't my intent. I don't share your view of how the world works, but I respect your right to your opinion. However, in your first post, it did not seem to be presented as an opinion.