Very true McGentrix. I'm quite sure a fair number of athiests and/or other non-Christians show up at the Salvation Army and 'endure' that short sermon rather than going to a city soup line or other service purely because the Army goes out of its way to be sure that every person knows he or she is a real person and somebody cares about him/her.
Quite interesting that the Salbvation Army in the German speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg) [proudly] refuses to take money from the state.
Foxy
Apparently you are having a problem understanding. Based upon the separation of church and state the government may not fund religious activities i.e. prayer or proselytizing. Salvation Army in requiring one to attend a sermon to get government funded aid is in direct violation of that requirement. In addition why should someone of a different faith be subjected to what I would call religious abuse to get that aid. Were it I - I would tell them to shove their religion up their collective a$$es.
The government would not be funding prayer or proselytizing. They would be funding food, shelter, clothing, etc. for the needy. I would presume all agencies receiving government grants would have to give a full accounting of how they use the funds. For the agency to be required to stop prayers and preaching in order to receive a grant would violate the constitution. For an agency to receive funding for non-religious purposes even though some of their activities are religious does not violate the constitution.
au1929, it's no use trying to get some folks to acknowledge what you're saying. Their argument, as I understand it, boils down to: "I see nothing wrong with including a sermon with a free meal for a poor person. It might do him some good..."
No D, it boils down to an agency having the right to practice religion unhindered by government, and that if a person chooses to receive assistance from an agency, they will receive it on the agency's terms. All agencies have rules you know. It's just that some faith-based groups have the rule about a sermon or saying a prayer before the meal. Nobody is forced to use the agency or even pay attention to the sermon or the prayer.
And it all boils down to the faith-based group doing what it has always done with or without additional government money and being able to provide more food, clothing, shelter or whatever to the people if they do have government money.
Talk about putting the cart before the horse: It's unfair to the faith-based agency to adhere to federal policies if the agency receives federal money? Is that the argument?
No one is telling the churches not to sermonize. But I'll be damned if I want my tax money to subsidize it.
Did I say that the faith-based group not have to adhere to Federal policies? I would be very upset if the Feds didn't impose very strict regulations on the use of the money. Some faith-based groups won't take government money because they don't want the hassle of the restrictions and record keeping. But it was would constitutionally illegal for the feds to tell the Salvation Army they had to stop a religious practice in order to receive a grant or to favor one religious group over another, each providing the same services equally effectively.
To help an agency help more people or help better saves you money, me money, and helps people. I think it pretty hard-hearted to disallow an agency from helping just because you are religiousphobic or just disagree with a particular practice.
The alternative is for the government to start from scratch with a building, staffing, etc. etc. etc. and most of your tax dollar going for that instead of to those who most need it.
Or to support agencies that help without religious strings attached.
And for your information, I'm not "religiousphobic" as you so eloquently put it. I am for the separation of church and state.
So am I D. I am also a realist and practical in this matter. I do not believe providing food, shelter, clothing, transportation, a haircut, a shower or whatever services agencies may provide to violate the separation of church and state in any way. And so long as the government funds are distributed for that purpose, I don't care who distributes the benevolence. If there were enough secular agencies out there to cover all the need, it might be different. But most people who go into the business of providing the most basic needs to people are faith based.
Foxy
Who said they shouldn't help. Of couyrse they should help. However, if they insist upon doing it with strings attached, it should be on their dime.
I think it is Au. The government isn't giving grants to provide prayers or preaching to people. It is giving grants to provide the most essential needs to people. Why should any of us care who distributes the funds or how it is done so long as nobody is forced into going to a particular agency for help?
This discussion is getting repetitive again. I'll leave it to others to fight the good fight...
Foxy
Correct the government is giving grants to help all people and not to provide prayers or preaching to people. The salvation army as a prerequisite to getting that help make people endure their religious beliefs. However, if they want the funds they should play by the rules.
Foxy wrote
Quote:Why should any of us care who distributes the funds or how it is done so long as nobody is forced into going to a particular agency for help?
In other words if you don't want to follow my rules and suffer my religion go elsewhere. I ask you should the government be supporting such as that with Tax dollars?
Yup. Reasonable rules concerning religion are no different than reasonable rules concerning anything. So long as the service is provided and people wish to avail themselves of it and the taxpayer can save a bundle by using efficient organizations with facilities and staff already in place to provide them, I will say go for it no matter what brand of religion an outfit is peddling. I'm not paying for religion. I'm paying for people to get help.
No sense beating a dead horse. Bye BYE
separation of church and state
Fox
I can't help but wonder how many of these people have ever received gov't aid. Many of the people here seem to think that the recipients never object to the gov't requirements. As if the religious organization was a barrier to accessing help. I think we should consider why our nation spends so much to help those in need. Where does this sense of responsibility come from? I am not suggesting that it is exclusively Christian by any means. But many people are motivated to help because of their various religious beliefs. It seems unreasonable to expect them to separate them completely.
I heard that it is only during the last half century or so that AU's viewpoint gained prominence. I am no legal scholar so perhaps someone else will chime in.
I'm no legal beagle either Dado, but I just know faith based organizations have been receiving government funds for decades via United Way, grants, and other sources and there was no problem at all until recently, I suppose because George Bush saw it as a way to increase benefits to people without the government having to incur so much overhead cost to provide it is part of the problem and maybe because it has been advertised as policy is a concern to some. I try to be a strict constitutionalist though and I have thought about this from every angle, and the way it is being done is helping people and is violating no law.
If the government had been as effective in eradicating religion from public life as George W. Bush likes to insist it has, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) would not have been able to turn public park benches into church pews. But that's pretty much what happened in 1998, when LDS leaders secretly persuaded then-Salt Lake City Mayor Deedee Corradini to sell a block of Main Street to the church for $8.1 million. The church had been coveting the downtown land for years, as it slowly snatched up all the real estate surrounding the Mormon Tabernacle, its religious capital.
Initially, the church said it would remove the street and build a landscaped park that would "bring a little bit of Paris to Salt Lake," complete with reflecting pool. The city planning commission approved the deal on condition that the new plaza be regulated as a public park. But the city council signed off on a slightly different proposal, which quietly granted the church exclusive rights to proselytize in the park and to keep out those it found undesirable.
As a result, people crossing the plaza on their way to Nordstrom can now be bombarded with religious brochures and broadcasts of LDS church president Gordon B. Hinckley droning on about the evils of "so-called gays and lesbians." Passersby, however, can no longer use the space to protest (as they did during the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment), listen to music, sunbathe, skateboard, smoke, or do any of the other things they used to be able to do on the city street and sidewalks. Mormon security guards will ensure that the poor schmuck smoking a Newport and sporting an "I'm with shithead" T-shirt finds another route to the mall.
I love the idea of the Mormons bringing "a little bit of Paris to Salt Lake." Oooh, la la!
Next thing you know you'll be able to sip wine at an outdoor cafe...
