This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based Programs

Once upon a time, a long, long year or two ago, I was roundly and purely opposed to any sort of public funding for faith-based initiatives.  I had several long arguments with a friend of mine, another liberal atheist who nevertheless had a more pragmatic position on the topic.  As usually happens with this particular friend, I eventually saw the wisdom in much of what he was saying, and my own position has moderated since then.

In the same vein as Saintcog's excellent diary Why This Atheist Supports Obama's Faith Based Initiative, allow me to describe my experience at the Lakes Region St. Vincent De Paul food pantry today.

I'm staying with my aunt on vacation in New Hampshire this week.  One of the things she asked in return was that I come volunteer with her at the food pantry this evening, which I agreed to do.  Several things stood out to me in my time there.

First: there is no doubt that this is a conservative faith-based charity program.  Most of the open wall space was covered with crucifixes, hanging rosaries, framed or mounted quotations from Scripture, and even a framed portrait of President Bush.  Jo, the boss, led all the volunteers in prayer (most especially For The Troops) before the doors opened.

Second: they had rows upon rows of necessities stacked up and ready to hand out, no strings attached, to anyone who asked.  There were shelves filled to overflowing with nonperishables from canned food drives; there was laundry detergent, razors, diapers, tampons, deodorant, toys, children's books.  There were boxes full of cooked chicken and pastrami and dozens of packages of bread and hamburger buns that were all leftovers from a Lyons Club meeting earlier in the week.

Dozens of people came through--the working poor, the homeless, alcoholics and drug addicts, all sorts of needy people.  Most were regular visitors who were on a first-name basis with the volunteers.  Several were brand new and signed up this very night.

Not only did Jo hand out all the food these people needed for their families (many with several very young children), she also checked to make sure that everyone who qualified for additional governmental assistance through WIC or other New Hampshire state programs had the information they needed to sign up.

There was no entrance test, there was no shibboleth.  There were no questions like "so what church do you go to?" or "have you accepted Jesus into your life?"  There was just a lot of supplies donated by generous people, being handed out by generous people, to people who needed them.

But they need to keep their freezer running and they need to keep the lights on.

There's no way you're going to convince me they're not giving back to the community--the whole community--enough to be considered a viable community investment.  Assisting faith-based charities like this one is no violation of the separation of church and state, so long as the assistance they provide is not religiously restricted.  They're working towards the same goals that we are:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."

2 Corinthians 8:13-15 (NIV)



Display:


Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 4)

That's great. They can continue to do that work without our tax dollars. And we certainly don't need a special council or office in the Executive branch to find ways to give them more money.

While you describe yourself as an atheist, I'm assuming that since this is your aunt's church, you were raised Catholic/Christian. Maybe you don't realize it, but to those of us who were raised as non-Christians, the statement, "Most of the open wall space was covered with crucifixes, hanging rosaries, framed or mounted quotations from Scripture" is sort of creepy. People shouldn't have to be subjected to a bunch of religious iconography to obtain social services.


by LakersFan on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:36:20 PM EST

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (1.80 / 5)

How cynical, do you also beat up people for wearing crosses in public buildings?

Signed,

Devoted agnostic and skeptic


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:37:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uprated for TR abuse (nt) (none / 0)


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 3)

Hopefully you see the dis-analogy between people wearing religious symbols in a public building and a public building displaying such symbols.  The latter is an institution of power.  In that context, such symbols send the message that one group of people is privileged and represented over the others (recall that our country is founded on egalitarian equality before the law).  By contrast, people in the building are not the institution and are free to pray, wear religious symbols, etc., as they see fit.  It is not too much to ask that government charities be secular and strictly devoted to their charitable work and relief work.  Nothing in this requirement of secularity prevents religious folk from participating.  And indeed, if charity is truly the aim of these people then they should have no objections to leaving their own religious iconography and positions at the door.  After all, they're there to help, not proselytize right?  Certainly they have no ulterior motives, do they?


by Philoguy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exclusion is just as bad. (none / 0)

I tend to agress that money should not be dedicated to religous institutions, but I completly disagree with you on whether or not they should be singled out for exclusion.  Wether or not you believe in God, much of the taxpayers in America are.  

I relieze it is impossible to say anything Bush did was an accomplishment, but I do think that the idea is to bring power from Washington to the local level is tackling poverty.

Here is the progress report: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbc i/The-Quiet-Revolution.pdf

You will love the title.


by Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:18:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Colleges (none / 0)

Universities receive extensive federal funding in the form of research grants (and other sources).  Many have a religious foundation and use religious imagery either because of an active or historical connection to churches.

What do you think that book with Hebrew on it is?

Or these two books?

Hows your Latin?

That's before we get to Jesuit schools, or other schools actively associated with a religious group.  

Yet all of these universities get public funding in some manner despite religious symbols and/or scripture on every official document (or at least every one that has the seal).  A charity that does not religiously discriminate or proselytize and one that maintains a clear distinction between its charitable efforts and its actual religious activity should be just as eligible for federal assistance.

And this is from an non-church going agnostic (whose father went to a Jesuit university in the 1950s as an Irish protestant) who strongly believes in the Separation of Church and State as fundamental to our government.  


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Colleges (none / 0)

By the way, that's Yale, Princeton, Columbia and Duke.


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 5)

That's great. They can continue to do that work without our tax dollars.

And they could do more of that work with our tax dollars.  That's exactly the point--they're doing the exact work that we want to see done, they have a proven track record of being able to do it, so why not invest in helping them expand?

Jo also mentioned that a social worker sent a mother her way that she had to turn away, because this mother lives in Tilton and "we have our hands full just serving Lakes Region, we can't serve out as far as Tilton too."

While you describe yourself as an atheist, I'm assuming that since this is your aunt's church, you were raised Catholic/Christian.

You assume incorrectly.  My father is a militant atheist and my mother is a lapsed Catholic.  I attended an Episcopal church for a few months in my childhood because I asked my mother to take me; and she was relieved when I said I didn't want to go any more because that meant she didn't have to.

I'm not a vampire, though.  Seeing a crucifix doesn't drive me out of a building.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or... (none / 0)

instead of this:

"And they could do more of that work with our tax dollars."

Do they put their money back in their pocket for "faith" stuff and just use our tax mney to do good stuff?


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or... (2.00 / 3)

Well, considering the Society of St. Vincent De Paul doesn't do anything except their charity work, I'd say mine was a pretty safe bet.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 1)

If doing more of that work is what they're genuinely interested in, why not simply form organizations to do that work and leave the religion out of it?  After all, in their hearts they're still the same religion regardless of whether or not the institution they form directly endorses a particular religion or not.  Jesus consistently told his followers to pray in private.  It seems that advice would apply nicely here.


by Philoguy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:23:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 2)

I am a professional organizer.  It's my job to recruit, train and mobilize volunteers.  In my experience, it's no easy job regardless of the importance of the effort.  

No matter how much people say they care, it's damn hard work getting them to commit their time and energy, especially on a regular long-term basis.

Fund all the secular volunteer efforts you want, but you are going to end up paying organizers a buttload of money to find the volunteers churches already have ready to do the work.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:41:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (none / 0)

While that makes sense and I'd agree with it, my experience with the Christian "help the poor" groups is the same as the author's (all positive with no preaching AT ALL).  The Christians (or any other faith interested, for that matter) already have the network set up.  Getting secular groups started would be like reinventing the wheel.  I suppose we could TRY (just to show that we're not heart-less people who could care less about the poor or downtrodden), but it's a lot easier to volunteer at an already-established place and/or deliver our donations to the already-established place.  


by Anita on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 1)

I'd rather the tax dollars go elsewhere. There are plenty of public programs that are severely underfunded. I think this is a misuse of public funds. Religious organizations have their own fundraising channels that are untaxed. They really don't need our tax dollars too.

I'm not a vampire either. But crucifixes do make me feel very unwelcome. And I bet there are people at that soup kitchen who feel that way too.


by LakersFan on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:57:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (none / 0)

Oh ffs, maybe you can ask them to hang a pentagram on the wall on the days youre there, to even it out.


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:13:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (none / 0)

If you are down-and-out and need a meal badly enough to go to a soup kitchen you won't be paying any attention to what is on the walls. The smell of food will get all of your attention. If you are forced to listen to a sermon or sit quietly during a blessing of the food, you will do it without much resentment. I've been in places like this. I've even volunteered in religious based soup kitchens. Some of the homeless sleep through the little homilies that are presented after the meal. When you are homeless and discarded by society, it's a small price to pay for a full stomach and a warm place to relax. I say this as an atheist.

Of course, I only condone actions like that when this is paid for by church dollars. I would never approve of any event like that if it was paid for with taxpayer money.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:37:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (none / 0)

I don't disagree, especially when it's paid for with church dollars. With their own money, they can proselytize, iconify, and bible thump to their heart's content.

But I really think that the down and out, homeless and poor deserve to have their beliefs respected as much as anyone else.


by LakersFan on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 5)

You do know that your tax dollars are already doing this and were before Bush?  Groups like Habitat for Humanity apply and get government grants all the time to help with heir mission.

FYI

Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 2)

Habitat is the group I've been thinking of most with this latest mini-outrage (and as an Obama supporter, I wish he hadn't proposed it). Few people think of them as a Xian outfit, but they are.

I'd be willing to compromise as long as groups receiving money were required a) to strictly account for the money b) to follow all non-discriminatory federal hiring practices.


by BlueinColorado on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:16:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 1)

And c) engage in no proselytizing whatsoever.  For example, counseling services for battered women and children, substance abuse, etc., should contain no religious or spiritual element if they receive government money.


by Philoguy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (none / 0)

A, B and C were all part of Obama's proposal, for what it's worth.  I kind of like the idea of utilizing available charitable infrastructure, as long as those Constitutional issues are enforced.


Montesquieu and Locke are rolling in their graves right now...
by mannabass on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:14:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Faith-Based (none / 0)

You don't speak for me, cause I have no problem with them using my tax dollars.


by GeeMan on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (none / 0)

BOrn and raised athiest, find iconography rather creepy, but agree with the diarist that investing in places like these is a very good social investment.


by nwgates on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience (2.00 / 2)

I hear ya.
My experience is with the JCOC (Jewish Community Outreach Center) (I'm not Jewish). They are one of the oldest, most recognized and most respected non-profit groups in our area. I have done volunteer work in their food kitchen, the shelter and in the Shelter Thrift store. NEVER have I heard a peep about religion.....it is, and has always been, about helping others....no matter from whence they came (or are going).

I would not mind IN THE LEAST if Government dollars (my tax dollars) made into their hands to use to further their cause.

While I agree that there are religious groups out there that might take advantage of the situation....I believe that this is a perfect example of 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'.

With strict rules and meticulous oversight....I believe that it can work.


by Kysen on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:38:15 PM EST

Re: This Atheist's Experience (2.00 / 2)

I must make a correction....though, one that further proves my point.

According to my wife the JCOC is the Judeo-Christian Outreach Center.

I have volunteered off and on for them for almost a decade now....until 10 minutes ago I thought that they were the Jewish Community Outreach Center (my wife tells me that I am confusing them with the JCC down the street). Never have I heard one thing about Christianity when working with them (nor, to be fair, anything about Judaism).

They do great works.
They help their fellow man.
I care not that they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim or 'other'.
Nor do they.


by Kysen on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience (none / 0)

Jews don't proselytize in general and understand their ethical work as being directed at the neighbor/stranger as per what is commanded in Leviticus (Santner's Psychotheology of Everyday Life is an outstanding read on this).  Nonetheless your point is well taken.


by Philoguy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:27:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not "in general." Judaism is strictly (2.00 / 1)

anti-proselytizing. You're supposed to actively discourage all but the most serious converts.


by bobdoleisevil on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:52:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 3)

It's a slippery slope.  Sounds like the food pantry you volunteered at is a fine example of organizations doing good charitable work.  However, there are many faith based charitable organizations that require recipients of their charity to participate in a lecture/sermon on faith before receiving assistance.
IMO, it's a slippery slope; tax dollars and faith based initiatives.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:22:09 PM EST

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 3)

Slippery slope is a bad argument when they make it, and it's a bad argument for us to make.

Require the charity to provide secular services and follow non-discriminatory hiring practices and to strictly account for the money, or they don't get any.  Slippery slope has been un-slipperied.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (2.00 / 3)

Then deny those groups any funding.  Put out some easy ways to report abuse and punish it when it happens.

Guys, come on.  It's not like we've never regulated something before.  We're Democrats.  We love bigger government programs we get to police.

:)


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based (none / 0)

Or publicly funded religious organizations that function in much the same way that a predatory adult functions in giving a child candy.  First they give the candy and kindness, and then it's off to hear the sermon.


by Philoguy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:29:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Faith meets tax dollars (2.00 / 5)

If they want to apply for federal funds they can create the secular affiliate that other religious organizations did for years before Bush's office for religious payouts.


by wengler on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:24:41 PM EST

Re: Faith meets tax dollars (2.00 / 2)

Logic prevails. Make the affiliate secular and then you get the money.
Broad based dismissals of the slippery slope argument are themselves a slippery slope. Just because a douchebag repugnican uses a slippery slope argument based on a logical fallacy (the institution of heterosexual marriage is threatened by sanctified homosexual unions), doesn't mean that the very real fear of abuse of federal funds by the THOUSANDS and  THOUSANDS of batshit crazy religious groups that would have  NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER misusing your money to further their completely fuqued up agenda and even cook the books to hide it.
There are many ecumenical, charitable, humble stewards of the will and word doing work without religiously imperialistic motives.
There are just as many THAT ARE NOT.
by Zorkon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Faith meets tax dollars (2.00 / 1)

Logic prevails. Make the affiliate secular and then you get the money.

What's the practical difference between that and what Sen. Obama is suggesting, exactly?

"BVM Soup Kitchen, as affiliated with Glorious Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mother Mary Catholic Church--BY THE WAY WE ARE SECULAR."

It's still a secular social program being run by a religious organization, which is precisely what Sen. Obama is proposing that we fund.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:04:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Faith meets tax dollars (2.00 / 1)

OK, Let's get The Flying Spaghetti Monster one of these designations, set up a soup kitchen with walls adorned with posters and shelves full of pamphlets about FSMism.
Seem strange to you?
No stranger than seeing depictions of a virgin birth , a concept that  was wholly ripped off from the myth of birth of Isis.
Or the crucifix, the violent reminder of our near demise as a species.
Now here's your soup , Heathen. the FSM's big eyeball's upon ye.

Yeah, that's what's government is for.


by Zorkon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:15:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Would I object to a Pastafarian soup kitchen? (2.00 / 1)

That'd be awesome.  I'd pretend to be homeless just so I could eat there.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:20:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Would I object to a Pastafarian soup kitchen? (none / 0)

If the spaghetti is flying, don't wear your best shirt.


"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible
by BobzCat on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:01:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Faith meets tax dollars (2.00 / 1)

Would they have spaghetti every wednesday?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:37:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Faith meets tax dollars (none / 0)

You only get spaghetti during communion.


by Sarcastro on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:43:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If seeing a cross on a wall... (2.00 / 2)

is enough to coerce a grown adult into belief then I give the fuck up. These people don't deserve free soup if they are that impressionable.

Give me a break. Your problems is its creepy? Starve to death for a month then tell me if you mind the creepy wall-hangings. And who gives a shit where they got the virgin birth or what the symbolism of the crucifix is exactly? Sounds like you have a bone to pick with religion, not a legitimate argument.

That said, FSM rocks; accept him as your Lord and personal pasta.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:21:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If seeing a cross on a wall... (none / 0)

is enough to coerce a grown adult into belief then I give the fuck up. These people don't deserve free soup if they are that impressionable.

Heh, no kidding.

Starve to death for a month then tell me if you mind the creepy wall-hangings.

Exactly.  It sounds to me like some of these folks have never been homeless and starving. I have, and what you say is right on the money.

Sounds like you have a bone to pick with religion, not a legitimate argument.

Captain Obvious is in da house!

:)


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If seeing a cross on a wall... (none / 0)

No legitimate argument?
The government has no place funding one belief  over another. People have a right to their own personal beliefs (not facts), it's just that government has absolutely no place in funding it. If federal dollars bought the crucifix on the wall, it's an endorsement. period.
Have a whole heaping helping of whatever religion you choose, but let's go on a complete theocracy fast for a few centuries and see how fast the human race can evolve.
Theocracy is evil and one of the greatest hindrances to progress in human history. There's the bone to pick, and it's the femur of a diplodocus.
Your whole argument is based on "whatever dude".

by Zorkon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:01:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed, but that's not what's proposed (none / 0)

The proposal is that the government buy sandwiches, not crosses. Further, the government will be giving sandwiches to mosques, temples, churches, and secular institutions equally. The idea is not extra money for religious charity; it's treating all charities equally for the good of those in need.

The argument you're making is strawman. You're railing against an initiative that isn't proposed. Further, you're railing against a theocracy when no such thing is even implied and indeed the proposal puts in more blockers to such governmental creep than we have now. Enforced non-discrimination? Money that's contingent on not proseletyzing? Contribution to all charities regardless of faith affiliation or lack thereof? Tell me, how are we going become a Chrislamudhistinduewish nation from this? If all religions and all non-religious entities are afforded the same consideration, that is no endorsement.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed, but that's not what's proposed (none / 0)

Straw man?
B.S!
I seem to remember a president who once had a 90 percent approval rating at the time declare this was a Christian nation. Just go back a few years to the Schiavo case to see a government caving to the demands and agendas of religious fundies. religious fundamentalists ALWAYS abuse whatever power given to them. Religious imperialism is intrinsic to modern christian fundamentalism.

Separation of church and state is my RIGHT and I have no desire to be identified nationally  as any hybrid jumble of religions.
I want full religious freedom and full freedom from religion.
And if your going to deny that we haven't had a "creep" of theocratic  leaning in this country, then your being intellectually dishonest. It IS a slippery slope and that argument sticks.

"money that's contingent on not proseletyzing"
uh, yeah. that's the idea. Would you allow a sermon on the FSM to be held before a charity meal funded by the government? I wouldn't

Next you're going to accuse me of logical fallacy and tautology in  debate 101 fashion.


by Zorkon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:24:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I'm going to accuse you of prophecy. (none / 0)

None of the proposed initiative has fuckall to do with religious language or other representations. The initiative proposes helping a faith-based charity the same way a company or individual can get a tax-break for doing charitable works.

Further, separation of church and state is an ambiguous phrase and is, in fact, not your right. It's an easy to recite slogan meant to encapsulate the fact that congress shall not create any law restricting religious practice. As for a theocracy creep, please. Look a legislative decisions and judicial review 100 years ago and tell me we're more theocratic now.

Again, you're addressing none of the specifics of the agenda and are simply proposing that we reject the very idea of collaboration outright. Sorry. I reject orthodoxy which claims that religion heals all, but I likewise reject orthodoxy which states that religion has no public place. Lets debate the merits of the program itself and how those particular propositions bode for future expansion, not the general idea that "OMG relijuns in mah governmentz iz bad".


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I'm going to accuse you of prophecy. (none / 0)

Tax breaks and actual Uncle Sam Cheese aren't the same thing. Don't lump them together.

"Again, you're addressing none of the specifics of the agenda and are simply proposing that we reject the very idea of collaboration outright. "

No. You're guilty of the straw man. I demanded separate entities with secular classifications. If administrated by churches, they should be no less secular than any other federally funded organization.

Also, if this can be extrapolated upon, why can't  scores of other non-religious charitable groups also pay their bills with help from the federal government.


by Zorkon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:04:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I'm going to accuse you of prophecy. (none / 0)

?


by Zorkon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the proposal. (none / 0)

Outreaches without the accouterments of the faith in administration. Not direct to church coffers.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:32:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh *and*... (none / 0)

Other non-religious groups do get help from the federal government. That's the point. Why exclude a charitable organization just because a Rabbi thought it up instead of a doctor?


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:33:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based Pro (2.00 / 1)

Right. I mean is there any way I could read this diary and NOT Rec it?  Seriously, how could I not?  I'm mentioned by name :)

Great anecdote.  It gives breath to this otherwise abstract ideological debate.


by Saintcog on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:30:40 PM EST

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based Pro (2.00 / 1)

Sorry for violating the rule about not calling out other diarists. :(


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based Pro (none / 0)

Heh, call me out all you like.  You got my diary back on the Rec List...LOL


by Saintcog on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:20:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Top of the rec list, eh? (2.00 / 1)

Must be a slow night on MyDD.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:58:54 PM EST

Republicans HATE Jesus Christ (none / 0)

What the fuck is up with all those social programs?


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:15:29 AM EST

Potential (2.00 / 1)

The Bush Faith Initiative was little more than a scam through which evangelicals were bribed into giving their votes to Republicans. That's why Obama is scrapping it and replacing it with what seems to be far more ethical, sensible, practical, and forward-looking.

I want to investigate Obama's ideas here further, but what I think he's getting at is assistance at the federal level to help groups within communities talk to one another, coordinate their programs, and find solutions. It comes from Obama's own experiences in Chicago, getting people to put aside their differences and suspicions and find common purpose.

For example, getting the local churches, synagogues, and mosques working together with community centers, real estate developers, and law enforcement to provide clean, safe, well-staffed shelters, kitchens, services, and counseling would be a great thing. If a federal presence can help coordinate these secular activities and in some cases help with necessary funding (while providing oversight of the use of funds) I think it's a great opportunity to utilize existing infrastructure while motivating those within communities to communicate, cooperate and solve problems on their own. It can be incredibly empowering.


"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible
by BobzCat on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:57:16 AM EST

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based Pro (none / 0)

Slippery slope government doling out tax-payer dollars to faith-based groups.

And I don't like the idea that faith-based groups, no matter their good intentions, get to shrink the slice of their former commitments to good and public works by whatever percentage can be made up by secular tax dollars.

That former slice? Who really believes that will continue and not be cut back for an increase in the padre's housing allowance, a new Bible camp van, more printed proselytizing material or a new coat of varnish on the faithful's pews?

Sure, those admirable faith-based programs staffed with unpaid volunteers will continue, but will they expand?

Are those organizations required to  file financial reports documenting the percentage of private, tax-free donations they currently commit to charity and prove in following yearly documents that their contributions to their own programs have not slacked off by the direct amount they receive from the faith-based Office of Got Faith?

Slippery slope. I'm leery of the whole thing.

While I have great empathy for the working poor, I raise a skeptical eyebrow at the repeated drug and alcohol addicted who line up daily for the free ride these generous organizations provide.

If I have to abide by the legal and social rules that I can't even light up one of my cigars within twenty feet of an outside door, then I think it's time we draw a line that some individuals can't line up for the enabling hearth of charity unless committed to working themselves off the street like all the rest of us.

Remember that old truism?

Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.  


by RickWn on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:11:10 AM EST

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based Pro (2.00 / 1)

That former slice? Who really believes that will continue and not be cut back for an increase in the padre's housing allowance, a new Bible camp van, more printed proselytizing material or a new coat of varnish on the faithful's pews?

This money is proposed to go to programs, not to churches.  The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Habitat for Humanity are good examples--they only do charity, there's nothing else they could actually spend it on.

Are those organizations required to  file financial reports documenting the percentage of private, tax-free donations they currently commit to charity and prove in following yearly documents that their contributions to their own programs have not slacked off by the direct amount they receive from the faith-based Office of Got Faith?

Yes.

While I have great empathy for the working poor, I raise a skeptical eyebrow at the repeated drug and alcohol addicted who line up daily for the free ride these generous organizations provide.

If I have to abide by the legal and social rules that I can't even light up one of my cigars within twenty feet of an outside door, then I think it's time we draw a line that some individuals can't line up for the enabling hearth of charity unless committed to working themselves off the street like all the rest of us.

I'm not particularly offended that an alcoholic homeless guy is getting some bread and a can of beans from the charity food pantry, even one who is not "commited to working himself off the street like the rest of us."  That's not exactly living large, that's subsistence.  I'd prefer nobody in my community die from malnutrition, even if they happened to bring it on themselves.  And I know better than to presume I could be any stronger than him in his situation.

Remember the old truism, you cannot judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes?


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:23:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow. (2.00 / 1)

You suffer an addiction and a turn so bad you lose everything. Now see how easily you can quit your crutch while continuing to live on the street. You know how hard it is for an alcoholic businessman with a beautiful wife and huge house to quit running away into the comfort of a bottle? Imagine how hard it is for a disabled vet on the street with nothing but the disgust of his fellow man in his pocket to quit.

Jesus fucking Christ, Mother Mary, Joseph too and whoever else was in that goddamn family, you're a fucking callous arm-chair sociologist. Talk to me when you can't afford internet access with which to share your inane opinions.

/rant.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:26:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based Pro (2.00 / 1)

the reality is that the majority of community charities are Christian organizations, because of this you can't just ignore funding of Christian charities.

of course the money must be accounted for, but at the same time, it is an undeniable fact that the majority of american charities are Christian group.


by theninjagoddess on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:01:13 AM EST

Holy Obama (none / 0)

counterpunch.com/ireland07022008.html

excerpt:

In any event, now we know what Obama was talking about when he preached his daily sermon on "hope" and "change." You thought he was talking about peace in Iraq, health care for everyone, and other leftist nonsense. In reality, Brother Obama hopes to change all of you into evangelicals. He and George Bush are old pals. God told George to invade Iraq. What will God tell Brother Obama?

Our founding fathers (we had no founding mothers) got it all wrong. They believed in the separation of church and state. Evangelicals want to separate the state from your tax money by turning Sunday's collection over to certain religious groups that will use it for "faith-based initiatives."

read more....


by suzieg on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:31:10 AM EST

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based Pro (none / 0)

This quote upthread from philoguy bears repeating daily

"Hopefully you see the dis-analogy between people wearing religious symbols in a public building and a public building displaying such symbols.  The latter is an institution of power.  In that context, such symbols send the message that one group of people is privileged and represented over the others (recall that our country is founded on egalitarian equality before the law).  By contrast, people in the building are not the institution and are free to pray, wear religious symbols, etc., as they see fit.  It is not too much to ask that government charities be secular and strictly devoted to their charitable work and relief work.  Nothing in this requirement of secularity prevents religious folk from participating.  And indeed, if charity is truly the aim of these people then they should have no objections to leaving their own religious iconography and positions at the door.  After all, they're there to help, not proselytize right?  Certainly they have no ulterior motives, do they?"

perfect.


by Zorkon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM EST

Re: This Atheist's Experience with... (none / 0)

One of my Jewish family members was very involved in habitat for Humanity for awhile, but she finally left because she found that the Christian messaging within the group made her very uncomfortable.  

We aren't very religious people, rather a-religious, but it's important to note that just because some religious groups maintain a secular appearance, on the inside, they're often still proselytizing.


by mrrara on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:13:46 AM EST

Re: This Atheist's Experience with Faith-Based Pro (none / 0)

I'm an agnostic who used to volunteer at a Catholic soup kitchen.  I respect and appreciate their work, but I don't want them getting my tax dollars.  There are quite enough ways that I feel like my right to have a lack of beliefs are infringed in this country and it really pisses me off that even the Democrats are now contributing to this.  I hate the "god" part of the pledge and I hate having to make children say it every morning in my classroom.  This society is terribly discriminatory against people without faith and I don't feel like we should now have to have our tax dollars go to any church regardless of what good deeds they may accomplish.


No McCain in '08
by Renie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:48:48 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.