Quote:
WASHINGTON (CN) - Faith-based organizations may no longer conduct worship services or proselytize while providing social programs funded with federal money. President Obama has amended a 2002 Executive Order from President George W. Bush that allowed faith-based social programs to get federal aid.
Bush's order allowed religious services to be conducted at the same time and in the same place as the social program offered, so long as the service itself was not supported by the money allocated to the social program.
Thus, visitors to a soup kitchen run by a church might hear a sermon while getting their food.
President Obama's amendment mandates separation of the two activities, in time or place, and forbids making participation in a religious activity a requirement for receiving the benefits of the federally funded program.
The amendments also require the government to "monitor and enforce standards regarding the relationship between religion and government in ways that avoid excessive entanglement between religious bodies and governmental entities."
Religious organizations will have to refer beneficiaries of federally funded programs who object to the religious character of the program provider to an alternative provider within a "reasonable period of time."
To enforce the new requirements, the amendment creates the Interagency Working Group on Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood Partnerships, which is charged with writing rules to implement the changes across the government and all organizations that receive federal funding.
So, basically, faith-based organizations can no longer use federal aid as a dangling carrot for their proselytizing. They can either proselytize, or act as an aid organization. The loophole that allowed unethical act of forcing the downtrodden into listening to a sermon or participating in prayer before being fed has now been closed.
Countdown to epic butthurt?|||Quote:
Countdown to epic butthurt?
Whose?
IIRC, the reason that the B00sh policy was enacted had less to do with his being an XIAN ZEALOTT!! (who mentioned religion less than Obama does) than that both state and Federal capabilities were piss-poor by comparison with the religious ones (child placement services and hobo care, I believe).
I wonder who will fill the gaping hole created?
Can you say, "ACORN"? Yes, you can!|||The local mission and substance abuse recovery house is supported most heavily by the donations of locals, from what I'm aware of. I'll need to ask my friend who works there to see if and how this effects their specific outreach. IIRC, only their resident program involves any actual preaching. There may be a prayer to say thanks at the beginning of breakfast and lunch, but I don't know for sure. Knowing this place and the way it changes lives, there's a good chance that it's not relying on federal aid anyway.
Regardless, in "these hard economic times," this doesn't seem like something to rejoice over.|||Quote:
The local mission and substance abuse recovery house is supported most heavily by the donations of locals, from what I'm aware of. I'll need to ask my friend who works there to see if and how this effects their specific outreach. IIRC, only their resident program involves any actual preaching. There may be a prayer to say thanks at the beginning of breakfast and lunch, but I don't know for sure. Regardless, in "these hard economic times," this seems a pretty jerky thing to be gleeful about.
as far as i see it, charities are still free to give aid to people in exchange for their attendance of religious services, they just can't do it with government money. all this is doing is correcting something that shouldn't have been in the first place.
it's unclear from the text you quoted above whether they are still allowed to give aid and hold sermons at the same time (provided those sermons are not supported by government money), but if not, that's a bit of a dick move, unless anyone can think of a loophole through which people receiving the aid could somehow have it forced on them?|||Quote:
Regardless, in "these hard economic times," this doesn't seem like something to rejoice over.
Obviously, some here think it's wonderful... marvelous...
Quote:
it's unclear from the text you quoted above whether they are still allowed to give aid and hold sermons at the same time (provided those sermons are not supported by government money), but if not, that's a bit of a dick move, unless anyone can think of a loophole through which people receiving the aid could somehow have it forced on them?
After all, if you're eating in a soup kitchen your number one priority is to make sure you're not being evangelized to in any fashion. But I appreciate your turn of phrase, "a bit of a dick move", since that's exactly what the Atheist Crusaders will be about this. I wouldn't be surprised to see monitoring of any religious soup kitchen to ENSURE that no "stupid" religious attitudes are present when conducting charitable work.
Which, if you think about it, is pretty much the obligatory motivation for religious people to conduct charity in the first place... uh oh... OFF WITH THEIR HEADSS!!!!|||Quote:
The local mission and substance abuse recovery house is supported most heavily by the donations of locals, from what I'm aware of. I'll need to ask my friend who works there to see if and how this effects their specific outreach. IIRC, only their resident program involves any actual preaching. There may be a prayer to say thanks at the beginning of breakfast and lunch, but I don't know for sure. Knowing this place and the way it changes lives, there's a good chance that it's not relying on federal aid anyway.
Regardless, in "these hard economic times," this doesn't seem like something to rejoice over.
The issue isn't that a prayer may take place at some point during a resident program - that's perfectly reasonable. The issue was that some organization were literally holding their aid over people's heads in order to nudge them towards participation in religious practices. This is of course highly unethical, but I would not care so much if the money wasn't federal.
Quote:
Whose?
If the internet is any indication, entitled Christians. Note my qualifier: ime most moderates seem to be on board here.
Quote:
IIRC, the reason that the B00sh policy was enacted had less to do with his being an XIAN ZEALOTT!! (who mentioned religion less than Obama does) than that both state and Federal capabilities were piss-poor by comparison with the religious ones (child placement services and hobo care, I believe).
I don't think Bush's decision was purely religious, but one has to wonder why they allowed the type of abuses that are now needing to be reeled in.
Quote:
I wonder who will fill the gaping hole created?
Secular or ethical faith-based organizations. This isn't pushing out legitimate faith-based organizations - only those who used federal money to promote their dogmas, e.g, statism.|||Quote:
Regardless, in "these hard economic times," this doesn't seem like something to rejoice over.
Really? If anything I'd have thought you'd be a stronger proponent of this than I would. I'm against religion and especially its entanglement with the state, that's well known. But this was bad for religion qua religion. You basically had faith groups (not necessarily only churches but probably mostly) saying "you can eat if you listen to the sermon." That sort of activity seems diametrically opposed to the sort of christianity you talk about on this board. I must confess to being quite perplexed that you don't seem as happy as the rest of us.|||It's about time. I've heard a couple of stories over the past couple of years about faith based charities demanding conversion or they'd withhold aid. Granted this happened overseas in disasters like Haiti but the motive to convert is still here in the States but far more subtle and less extreme.
And gotta love J doing his same outraged christian routine.|||Quote:
Really? If anything I'd have thought you'd be a stronger proponent of this than I would.
Maybe I'm just not familiar with enough of these instances. I have never experienced or heard of a place saying 'You can only eat if you listen to a sermon.'
Like I said, I get monthly newsletters asking for donations to the local mission. It's very much a Christian mission, but I don't know if they receive any fed funds. They do not preach sermons at their public breakfast & lunch, though we've established that the residents are a different story.
I'll have to ask the cold weather shelter guy, too. The reason I say we shouldn't rejoice, however, is that some of these places struggle to stay open as it is. If my buddy Milt was receiving fed funds, but now has an even harder time as a result of this, it's a downside. Considering all of the big businesses that have received cash lately, it seems like a slight smack in the face. I'm very much a proponent of "giving a cup of cold water in Jesus name," but that's already being done quite a lot w/o fed help. Let's not get started on Atheists who think doing that is Mafia-esque...
I'll try to remember to ask those I know involved in these kinds of outreaches.
PS - Googling this reveals that Brother B is spreading the word across the 'nets.
|||Quote:Maybe I'm just not familiar with enough of these instances. I have never experienced or heard of a place saying 'You can only eat if you listen to a sermon.'
Oh, they'd never phrase it that way. It would be more like "come stay for our sermon and when we're done you get a meal!" Of course, this is an identical action with prettier language.
Quote:
I'll have to ask the cold weather shelter guy, too. The reason I say we shouldn't rejoice, however, is that some of these places struggle to stay open as it is. If my buddy Milt was receiving fed funds, but now has an even harder time as a result of this, it's a downside.
I don't see the issue. If your buddy Milt was commingling his sermons with his aid, then all he has to do is not do it. Which, by the way, is both the ethical and the christian thing to do. And if he wasn't mixing things up, then this doesn't affect him and so he shouldn't be concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment