Republican faith based initiatives

Yeah. I read that--or an excerpt very close to that several months ago--and thought maybe I'd been wrong about Washington--but what I found was that people such as the author of that excerpt you brought are the ones trying to re-write a major part of Washington's life.

Washington was an incredibly devout Christian.

His devotion was not 'put on' for public consumption, so he didn't go about performing popularly accepted behaviors to 'prove' his spiritual relationship--and he did deferentially leave off the specific names of the God he worshipped when in the performance of his public duties as President--but reading his private papers left no doubt to the God he prayed--or the God he spoke of in his inauguration.

God, though not specifically named, gets top billing in Washington's Inaugural--and in responsibility for winning this country for us from the British. So, though he wouldn't have to name a god--the fact that he was so insistent that the US was shaped and given by any god is a highly religious statement.

You should read his Prayer Book, and memoirs sometime.

Those trying to strip God from Washington's life are those doing the mythmaking.

0 Replies

Not really meaning to be callous here, but really, what does it matter what George's religious thinking was?

0 Replies

This is the Republican faith based initiatives thread...

They are discussing the difference in the two George's religions.

So, it would follow that the issue is the two George's religions.

I am at a loss to discuss it without a George's religion.

0 Replies

Ok, I shall butt out but frankly I don't give a rats ass what either George professes about religion. Their politics however is another matter entirely. I also don't give a *** what any of the constitution framers believed religion wise, I do care what they wrote IN the Constitution. I also don't care about their sex lives or if they used proper hygiene or birth control.

0 Replies

Bookmark

0 Replies

Well. It seems I'm taking this in a direction that may be contrary to where others want it to go.

I would like to say that --while there are strong opinions on both sides, some political, some apolitical--studies have shown that spirituality does play a vital role in healing several serious problems that draw people in need to churches.

The churches are called on to do the work--and because they have so many people coming to them, many times the need outweighs the donations, which in many cases are substantial.

Churches are doing good work for alcoholics, people with debilitating mental illness, suicidal people, homeless people, people in crisis for other reasons... Why can't the government help the country's churches help the country's people?

Why the discrimination?

But, I won't direct this thread further.

0 Replies

Ok so it appears I have missed the point of this thread but since I'm here, I got not problem with faith based anything but I do require that tax money be spend with accountablity for whomever receives it. This would, of course mean that staffing and services provided be restricted in no way to the favor of the agency receiving the funding. During my career I worked with a number of "faith based" organizations, some really class A and some class C- but they were all held to the accountablity that went along with the money. I hardly approve my tqax money offered to provide treatment for children with burns (as an example) to be used to send some missionary to christianize the savages (as if they weren't dangerous enough already) I think that's pretty clear, if you take the money, you abide by the rules.

0 Replies

That's the whole dodge that's going on here with "faith-based" initiatives--the Civil Rights Act of 1965 exempts them from meeting the equal employment opportunity provisions, and they would be free to hire only within their particular fairy-tale club, excluding those who do not espouse their creed. Not with my tax dollars, you don't.

0 Replies

Quote:

to send some missionary to christianize the savages (as if they weren't dangerous enough already)

0 Replies

Well Set I have to agree with you on that but it really does boil down (for me) to not be an issue of "faith-based" but fair-play with public monies. You know that old saying about all men being created equal is really bullshit but we can use it in an attempt to level the field of tax money being spent.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Well. It seems I'm taking this in a direction that may be contrary to where others want it to go.

Fair enough.
It's not the first thread to be hijacked. Here is as good a place as any.

Lash wrote:

I would like to say that --while there are strong opinions on both sides, some political, some apolitical--studies have shown that spirituality does play a vital role in healing several serious problems that draw people in need to churches.

True. I could not disagree more.
My theseis is that if someone is not raised within the religious community, many are drawn to the church in adulthood through crisis.
It's not a terribly academic reference, but I concur with Jesse Ventura's 1999 statement in Playboy (jeez...this must look like a fine direction. Jesse "the body" and Playboy!!!) that "organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business."

Faith based initiatives are a fantastic outreach, but the problem I share with others is tax dollars being given to (predominantly, if not exclusively) Christian organizations to assist the emotionally, financially, and physically needy. The assistance is not the issue, it's the integration of Christianity and the propagandization of the faith in that outreach that makes it such a touchy issue.

Lash wrote:

The churches are called on to do the work--and because they have so many people coming to them, many times the need outweighs the donations, which in many cases are substantial.

Why is the church the middle man? I suspect you are not an advocate of the welfare state, nor do I suppose you would willingly support any psycho-social safety nets being set up with your money for the needy.
if I am wrong, why does the Bush administration not advocate for higher minimum wages accross America, a universal health care system...etc. etc.?

Lash wrote:

Churches are doing good work for alcoholics, people with debilitating mental illness, suicidal people, homeless people, people in crisis for other reasons... Why can't the government help the country's churches help the country's people?

See above.
Why is something as controversial as a Christian church the middle man?

Lash wrote:

Why the discrimination?

But, I won't direct this thread further.

I thought discrimination was one of those left wing nut jobs dirty words? This is not discrimination any more than the disparity in funds provided to Christian organizations through faith based initiatives rather than other religious organizations.

0 Replies

The fact that Washington was devoutly Religious,

And that he took great pains to keep it out of the public eye, along with other founding fathers who were religious,

Should tell you something about how important the seperation of Church and State was to the founders of our nation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

This is the Republican faith based initiatives thread...

They are discussing the difference in the two George's religions.

So, it would follow that the issue is the two George's religions.

I am at a loss to discuss it without a George's religion.

...but I do think this is less relevant.
We can start a new thread about the Georges (Washington, Bush and Curious) if we wish to continue down this path.

0 Replies

I'll just respond to this--

Lash wrote:
The churches are called on to do the work--and because they have so many people coming to them, many times the need outweighs the donations, which in many cases are substantial.

Why is the church the middle man? I suspect you are not an advocate of the welfare state, nor do I suppose you would willingly support any psycho-social safety nets being set up with your money for the needy.
if I am wrong, why does the Bush administration not advocate for higher minimum wages accross America, a universal health care system...etc. etc.?
--------------
The Church is the middle man because desperatepeople show up at church offices, pleading for help. This has been going on likely soince the beginning of time. It is still going on in urban and rural churches all over the world...likely in ever town in every country where churches exist.

Because of this phenomenon, churches raise money to pay for the needs of those who come asking for help.

They've gotten good at it. So good, some people think governmental money would be quite well spent in adding to programs that are already doing a good job--rather than throw it away creating more bureaucracy that won't do such a good job.

However, I do strongly support mytax dollars being used for the welfare of those who need it--as I have said on more than a few occasions.

A higher minimum wage won't address most of htese problems--and universal healthcare cannot be sustained--and many (including me) think it will ruin the state of healthcare in this country.

If other religions have established successful public programs , they should certainly recieve funds commensurate with their programs.

Do you know if that is the case?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I'll just respond to this--

Lash wrote:
The churches are called on to do the work--and because they have so many people coming to them, many times the need outweighs the donations, which in many cases are substantial.

Why is the church the middle man? I suspect you are not an advocate of the welfare state, nor do I suppose you would willingly support any psycho-social safety nets being set up with your money for the needy.
if I am wrong, why does the Bush administration not advocate for higher minimum wages accross America, a universal health care system...etc. etc.?
--------------
The Church is the middle man because desperatepeople show up at church offices, pleading for help. This has been going on likely soince the beginning of time. It is still going on in urban and rural churches all over the world...likely in ever town in every country where churches exist.

Because of this phenomenon, churches raise money to pay for the needs of those who come asking for help.

They've gotten good at it. So good, some people think governmental money would be quite well spent in adding to programs that are already doing a good job--rather than throw it away creating more bureaucracy that won't do such a good job.

However, I do strongly support mytax dollars being used for the welfare of those who need it--as I have said on more than a few occasions.

A higher minimum wage won't address most of htese problems--and universal healthcare cannot be sustained--and many (including me) think it will ruin the state of healthcare in this country.

If other religions have established successful public programs , they should certainly recieve funds commensurate with their programs.

Do you know if that is the case?

The church as a physical location is not the issue.
The church as an entity providing a public service with public dollars to people accompanied with a sermon about God is the problem.
From the first page of this discussion:
"....faith-based social service providers should in fact be permitted to proselytize by reading religious passages from the Bible during those services."
It's kind of like going into the bank for a loan or mortgage and having the advisor preach to you about the superiority of their branch, their institution, or their banck manager (or something along that line).

If someone attends a Sunday service for the sermon, then the church can do their religious work.
If someone comes in needing blankets and a warm meal on a snowy Tuesday evening, they should be given their meal and blankets and the option to attend a church service on their own accord.

0 Replies

I've sought services for my clients (admittedly, just in one town) from five different churches.

None of them even suggested that the client recieving assistance should attend church services.

Two just made sure they hadn't recieved services elsewhere. Is there some program afoot, which mandates church attendance?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I've sought services for my clients (admittedly, just in one town) from five different churches.

None of them even suggested that the client recieving assistance should attend church services.

Two just made sure they hadn't recieved services elsewhere. Is there some program afoot, which mandates church attendance?

No, there is no formal mandate as far as I know, but when a Senator states that social service providers should and have a right to proselytize while providing the service, and the President says that "Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith", then I maintain that if faith based initiatives are solely about food and blankets and not religion, those individuals in positions of power must not lead us to believe otherwise.
What I have come to understand about these initiatives is that they are opportunistic in their practices in recruiting the needy.

I worked for a street team who targeted teenage prostitutes and other displaced youth. We were funded almost exclusively by church dollars (which were occasionally matched by municipal funds depending on our luck), yet we never once made reference to God, Jesus, church or any other religious organization.

Give the money to give the help, but make the sermon optional and far removed from the social service provided.

0 Replies

Candidone--

It seems that my experience--and yours--prove that mandatory church indoctrination is not a part of the church's outreach program to people in need...at least in 6 out of 6 cases personally investigated.

Maybe you can agree there may be a lot of criticism where none is due.

I don't think we should take one--or even two--Senator's word about what is going on with faith based programs.

I think someone should find a believable evidentiary source that sermons or proselytizing IS a part of enough church community assistance programs to merit this kind of criticism.... otherwise, it looks like empty, discriminatory bias.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Candidone--

It seems that my experience--and yours--prove that mandatory church indoctrination is not a part of the church's outreach program to people in need...at least in 6 out of 6 cases personally investigated.

Maybe you can agree there may be a lot of criticism where none is due.

I don't think we should take one--or even two--Senator's word about what is going on with faith based programs.

I think someone should find a believable evidentiary source that sermons or proselytizing IS a part of enough church community assistance programs to merit this kind of criticism.... otherwise, it looks like empty, discriminatory bias.

Addressing the bolded type:
I was quoting a republican senator and the President who, in spite of the legislation stating:

Quote:

The Federal Government must implement Federal programs in accordance with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, organizations that engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, and proselytization, must offer those services separately in time or location from any programs or services supported with direct Federal financial assistance, and participation in any such inherently religious activities must be voluntary for the beneficiaries of the social service program supported with such Federal financial assistance; and

(f) Consistent with the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the Constitution, faith-based organizations should be eligible to compete for Federal financial assistance used to support social service programs and to participate fully in the social service programs supported with Federal financial assistance without impairing their independence, autonomy, expression, or religious character. Accordingly, a faith-based organization that applies for or participates in a social service program supported with Federal financial assistance may retain its independence and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs, provided that it does not use direct Federal financial assistance to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselyti-zation. Among other things, faith-based organizations that receive Federal financial assistance may use their facilities to provide social services supported with Federal financial assistance, without removing or altering religious art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols from these facilities. In addition, a faith-based organization that applies for or participates in a social service program supported with Federal financial assistance may retain religious terms in its organization's name, select its board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization's mission statements and other chartering or governing documents.

I have worked in marketing and advertising and am well aware of the difficulty of attracting new clients and customers to one's organization of product.
"Needy people of America...welcome to the Christian church. Feel free to stay as long as you like."
With Bush infusing Christianity in so many factes of American politics, I remain skeptical of the integrity of this mission....especially in light of the statements made by President Bush and Senator Santorum.

0 Replies

I wouldn't have a problem with the part you bolded. They're mostly handing out clothing, paying bills, buying food...for people in need. No sermons necessary.

Those people can attend if they choose.

There may be some church programs that may become complicated under that restriction--but I can't think of one.... Maybe providing day care for needful people's children--and in the day care scenario, the children take part in Bible study.... That may be an issue.

0 Replies

Republican faith based initiatives

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know