The Republicans don't respect democracy. I mean Bush got in because he used the courts to stop the recount that would have given Gore Florida! I think using the courts to stop or hinder a free election is awful and against the ideals of this country. Oh *#*#*#*#, i completely forgot about California......
Sorry, I'm making a point.Deans said what he said, and i made the point that his own party used the courts to block the Oct & recall. I guess it's ok to use the courts as long as it benefits your own party.
I appreciate that, in your experience, the beneficiaries of your church's charity are grateful and do not mind that the kindness comes from a religious organization. But when federal money comes in to play, other factors come into consideration. How many of the families you've helped are Jewish? This is an honest question - I'm genuinely curious. I don't doubt that a hungry family would put the need for food above the discomfort caused by getting that food from a church. But that's the whole point here. OF COURSE hungry people don't care if there's a cross on the wall. They don't care if they're invited to Bible classes and they might not even care if they get talked to about Jesus a lot while they're eating. I have no idea if such things happen at all - but that's why these questions need to be asked. The desperate need of those who avail themselves of charity services makes them particularly vulnerable to promotion of religion. Now, let me clarify, I'm not saying that promotion of religion is necessarily a bad thing. And I honestly wish that every charity which does good works had all the money it needed. However, when federal dollars are paying for it, certain concerns need to be addressed. I am not saying and I never did say that federal money should not be used for this purpose. And thanks for all your assumptions about what I do and don't know about single motherhood, poverty and charity work.
My question isn't whether this could work constitutionally (i.e. whether Churches can provide services with federal funds without proseltyzing). My question is whether a change from the status is warranted. And if a change from the status quo is warranted, is this particular change better than alternative changes? Are there not enough secular charities to efficiently disseminate the federal funds available? Has there been any qualitative (or quantitative) study that determined that religious charities are better positioned to use federal funds than secular charities? What sort of safeguards will there be to ensure that some religions aren't favored over others? These are innocent questions -- I don't really know enough about the issue to have an opinion on this proposal. It sounds like some of you are much more familiar with these issues than I -- perhaps you can fill me in on the backstory.
Look, when people are hungry, out of luck and going to beg for food, they are extremely vulnerable to outside influence, be it political or religious. Let's say your church didn't explicitly ask people to join the Bible study class before serving the food, fine. But did the message of wanting them to join implicitly conveyed? The answer is YES. How? Human emotion dictates that appreciation and gratitude be generated in the bottom of the heart of these poor when receiving help from others. They were very grateful. So who is to thank for for all these generous timely support? The government? No. That'd never cross their mind, because they were in a church. Let's say a single mother with 3 kids was there under the roof of a church asking for food, and she would never know that the money used to help her was from the federal government, from the taxpayers like you and me. All she know was - the church, the church, the church. This is what happen: every time after she packed all of her groceries and be ready to leave the church building, Jesus on the wall was staring at her. Lord! Oh, my lord!
As anyone can tell you, I'm one of the biggest proponents of the separation of church and state in this forum, but this is getting ridiculous. It would appear you're against federal funding of church-sponsored charities because there's a chance the recipient might thank Jesus instead of you. You're reaching, man.
Actually, the ACLU - not the Democrats - filed to delay the recall. And they've got compelling arguments in their favor. But let's stay on topic, eh?
Did some digging up, and the more I learn about this, the less I like it. I'm sure all you knew that religious charities are already eligible for federal funds, right? They have to set up a separate, secular arm to recieve the funds. That separate, secular arm can't discriminate in hiring and can't proseyltize. Under the new regulations, as I understand them, the separate arm requirement is gone, and churches that receive these funds won't be prohibited from discriminating or proselytizing. I'm really not sure why the new regulation are needed.
It doesn't bother you in the slightest that your point was based on factually inaccurate information?
Well, there are two constitutional problems with giving out such grants to religious charities: 1. Close monitoring of said charities. You can't do that under the constitution. Think about it - you would ask the government auditors to determine if the money spent was for a religious or a non-religious purpose. They would be deciding whether what you do is secular or religious. That violates the separation of church and state. You can't regulate religion, just as much as religion can't try to impose itself on the government. That's why the government requires grants to religious charities be to separate non-profits who are not allowed to do any religious work. 2. The courts have repeatedly ruled that giving money to a religious organization for a secular purpose still violates the separation of church and state, because it frees up other money for that organization to conduct religious activities. For instance, the government can't pay for a science building at a religious high-school. Yes, its for science, but now the school can use the funds it didn't have to for religious activities. I.e. - you can't pay a church's electricity bill, because you're really giving them an unrestricted grant - they have to pay that bill anyway. On a personal note, I wish there was a way around this problem, since I'm not enough of an *#*#*#*#*#*#*# to declare that unless starving people can prove they aren't getting some Jesus with their soup, they shouldn't eat. But, then again, many religious organization DO use this as a way to proselitize. Its true. Not all, but many. (Christian coalition, anyone? With their "non-denominational" voting guides?) A much easier way to do this, is to reinstate programs that help the poor, handled by local or Federal governments. But, of coure, they didn't get Bush elected.
Your second premise was undermined a little bit by the Supreme Court recently when they ruled that vouchers could be given to parents who could give them to private religious schools. Otherwise, very good points.
My line of work involves the administration of the state's emergency food allocation program. We distribute food purchased with state-funded monies to hunger relief organizations throughout the state. Many of these, probably more than half, are faith-based. There is no problem with that. (I should also mention that a stipulation of receiving our services is that no agency can require a client to attend a service or make any proclamation of faith in exchange for food.) The problem with Bush's executive orders is that they create funding targeted to faith-based organizations. In other words, the United Ways and American Red Crosses are left out. Another question: who determines which agencies receive federal funding? Will preference be given Christian organizations? What happens when a Muslim group is denied funding? Now you're bringing about a *#*#*#*#*#storm. (And no, not all Muslim charities funnel money to al-Qaeda.)
Re: Well, That's an interesting point. Do you have any cites to decisions? I'd be interested in taking a look at them. Some people on this thread seem to be considering the propriety of these rules under a false dichotomy (hungry people get Jesus with their food, or they don't get food). This seems silly to me. There are countless secular charities getting funds now. In fact, it is the ubiquity of secular charities that purportedly justifies these new regulations. The Administration is justifying these rules in part because, ostensibly, as a way for religious charities to compete for funds with secular charities. The dichotomy is false -- you can get your food without getting a dose of Jesus now. Why is a change from the status quo warranted? I asked that question earlier in the thread, and nobody responded. I've seen quotes in the press saying that new rules are warranted because faith-based charities are better equipped to help the needy. But I've seen no data supporting that (after looking). The only data I've seen is that faith-based charities have a poorer track record than secular charities. I'm sure there's more data out there that the administration will point to. Has anybody found any?
Re: Re: Well, Bingo. Are no new funds being set aside? Is this simply about redistribution of money that's already going to charities?
Re: Re: Re: Well, I don't know (but see biggyv's post above). But it doesn't matter whether this is a redistribution of existing funds or a set-aside specifically for religious groups. I think such a distinction would be entirely semantic.
Re: Re: Re: Well, The way it's been presented, it is allowing faith-based charities to compete for existing funds - I don't believe there's been a mention of additional funds.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, There is a difference. If more money is being set aside, then more money is going to charities, and that's at least a little better than the same amount of money being redistributed. Of course there's no reason that the additional money couldn't go to secular charities or the secular arms of faith-based organizations. If feeding the hungry were really the aim, then more money would be a good start. But I don't see how allowing more organizations to vie for the same amount of money changes anything.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, You're right that it could make a difference on a practical level, but as far as the principle of the thing goes, it makes no difference.
That's a good point, but its not entirely correct. The issue with the vouchers is whether or not non-targeted grants to parents violated the separation of church and state. That's not at issue here, since the grants would be directly to faith based charities. The voucher situation is different because parents have a choice - the Court ruled that their choice to spend that money on parochial schools does not constitute substantial government entanglement with religion. A direct grant to a parochial school would be blown out of the water by even this Supreme Court.
That's true, although even if non-religious charities were allowed to compete this would still raise separation of church and state issues - you still can't use money for religious reasons. I don't want to be Ted Olson (one of the famous alums of my alma mater, actually) and handle those equal protection suits. Because any group that failed to get funding could raise a challenge on grounds of being denied something. To be honest, their case wouldn't be very good unless they could prove an actual plan of discrimination (I think; I'm a bit hazy on equal protection requirements), because you can't sue the government because you weren't awarded a contract. Still, the publicity would be far worse than the actual lawsuit. Give me a week and a half . Seriously - I'm in the process of moving, which means all of my books and notes are in a storage locker in New York, and I am no there. Plus, my access to Lexis has been cut off until mid-October. I'm trying to remember the cases off the top of my head, but all I can come up with is the name Bob Jones University. That might be one of the cases I'm thinking of, or it might be a tax case I'm remembering, and I'm not sure. If you seriously want the cites, I'd be happy to give them to you once I have my stuff back. Or, you could ask someone who just took the bar - its all in their materials. That's how I remember this stuff!
Re: Re: Well, Apologies to Scoey, since I chose this quote more-or-less at random ... Does anyone out there really believe that churches are out there "competing" to feed the poor, or that the poor or homeless have a smorgasbord of religious and secular-based options to choose from? Churches and secular charities both fulfill a real need where government programs fall short by chance or design or lack of funding. How is steering money to them a prohibited establishment of religion under the First Amendment?