Todays exercise in cynicism...

[John-in-KC 311]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p25s10-uspo.html

 

3 paragraphs from the article:

 

The senator was careful to highlight key areas of difference between that initiative and his own proposal for a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

 

"Make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea," Obama said.

 

He emphasized that those receiving funds could not proselytize the people they help nor could they discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of religion. Faith-based groups could only use federal dollars for secular programs. And he committed to ensure that taxpayer dollars would only go to "programs that actually work."

 

The last time I checked, the teachers my parish hired were of our denomination. The volunteers who manned the food pantry were of our denomination. Only the County Council on Aging meal site, where the employees came from the County offices (for that matter so does the foodservice equipment and the meals) are non-discriminatory, because they are using our facility rent-free.

 

To my way of thinking, Mr Obama said a sound bite that needs close interpretation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Personal note: We play the hand dealt us. Folks here cannot know how badly I wish an available ticket was Rice-Powell or Powell-Rice.

 

[GernBlansten 10]

I'm all for faith based initiatives, with caveats.

Many religious organizations have the resources and local integration to best deliver social services. They should be leveraged for that.

 

However, the recipients of those services should not have to bow to the will of the provider, including proselytizing.

 

Think of the BSA getting a Faith Based Initiative grant to provide a tent city for homeless people. A great initiative. But because of BSA policy against gays and athiests, they would only provide those tents to those who met their standards. That would be wrong.

[Pack212Scouter 10]

"Many religious organizations have the resources and local integration to best deliver social services. They should be leveraged for that. "

 

Hmmm..."leveraged"...must be today's PC term for "used."

[scoutingagain 20]

"To my way of thinking, Mr Obama said a sound bite that needs close interpretation."

 

I wouldn't worry too much about parsing the words of a candidate for national office. They are more than likely to be different either tomorrow or next month.

 

 

 

SA

 

[GernBlansten 10]

The term leveraged was carefully chosen to describe the ability of an established organization to apply more effective force to a problem than the energy supplied. Nothing PC about it. And the theory that the government "uses" these organizations implies that such a program would be involuntary on the part of the latter.

 

We'll see if Mr. Obama will fund this initiative better than the previous POTUS and use it for real good instead of political pandering.

[Rooster7 11]

However, the recipients of those services should not have to bow to the will of the provider, including proselytizing.

 

I presume that youre referring to providers whose services are augmented by the government (as opposed to providers who accept no federal funding). If so, that is a popular opinion. Still, I think it depends on how much augmenting the government is doing. For example, lets say theres a disaster. Option 1, the federal government can utilize their own resources and feed 100 people for $200. Option 2, they can supplement a church group with $50 and feed the same 100 people. The only caveat, the church group does not give up any of their 1st Amendment Constitutional rights i.e. they have freedom of speechand they wish to tell others about their God. In short, the government can feed an additional 300 persons for the same money if they simply ignore the cries of so-called activists who cling to a twisted interpretation of the Constitution. Personally, if I discovered that 300 people were left unfed and starving because the federal government chose Option 1 to avoid the possibility of proselytizing, Id be much more upset and disturbed. I would not expect the government to force self-censor on any group that helps them accomplish their goals, so long as that group is acting legally and within the standards of the community that they serve. I wont debate the separation of church and state clause as it has been done over and over, here and elsewhere. But I think most reasonable people can agree on these two assertions 1) that particular phrase is not in the Constitution, and 2) it is not unanimous as to how the actual Constitutional wording should be interpreted.

 

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Think of the BSA getting a Faith Based Initiative grant to provide a tent city for homeless people. A great initiative. But because of BSA policy against gays and atheists, they would only provide those tents to those who met their standards. That would be wrong.

 

That hypothetical really sells the BSA short. Do you really think the BSA, or most churches for that matter, would utilize membership criteria as a filter for those receiving help in a disaster? Careful - your bias is showing, and it aint pretty.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Some BSA councils have no problem applying for HUD grants to help inner-city kids by using their "no atheists allowed" scouting program, Rooster7. That's not a hypothetical example, either.

[GernBlansten 10]

Is my worst case scenario really that far from reality?

 

Let's say the govmint engages a religious organization, for example the Westboro Baptist Church to help in disaster relief. They provide them with funds to procure and distribute food and water to victims. The members of that church then place their famous flyers in the food packs and surround themselves with their posters. They stand on platforms with bull horns and announce their beliefs for everyone in earshot, calling out those who are the subjects of their scorn to repent before they receive the aid.

 

Now all those activities are protected by the 1st Amendment. However, do you think they should be eligible to receive the funds unrestricted? Where is the line?

[Rooster7 11]

GB,

 

Westboro Baptist Church? Thats a strawman argument. Please they do violate the standards of every community I know. And, they are hardly typical of Christian churches and the Christian community in general.

 

Merlyn,

 

I missed your point or did you miss mine? Yes, Im aware of the BSA membership criteria. But are you suggesting that they would use those criteria to decide who gets help in a disaster?

 

Thanks OGE - my opponents don't need any additional help...that's for sure. ;-)

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Gee Rooster, I sure hope you meant typical and not atypical

[GernBlansten 10]

Typical or not, it would be highly likely that the WBC would apply and be granted public funds to propogate their message. That is why restrictions must be applied.

[Rooster7 11]

I agree that restrictions should be applied. I just don't agree it should be based on religion or proselytizing. The WBC shouldn't be allowed to participate in such a program - not because of their faith (whatever that might be), but because of their antagonistic tactics and history of bad behavior.

[GernBlansten 10]

Both protected by the 1st Amendment. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Our wise founding fathers were fortunately smart enough to realize what a sticky wicket it is when you start trying to combine politcs and religion. It has always been a recipe for disaster and always will be. At least that is my view as an evangelical Southern Baptist Christian.