Govt Friendly to Faith Based Charities?

[keithster]

President Bush signed an Exec Order which creates an office that will work with faith based charities to help cure social ills.

Any thoughts?

Is this a good thing? Does it violate the separation of church and state? Are his claims that there are some ills which the govt cannot solve valid?

[Karenluvs6]

can you tell me where I can read about this?....so I can understand it better.

[keithster]

Here are some news links:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/29/152135.shtml

http://washingtontimes.com/national/default-20011302263.htm

http://www.msnbc.com/news/517502.asp

[Freezerwaffle]

I dig it. Personally, I think the best way to help people is to help them change from the inside out. Most of these agencies help everyone, regardless of who they are or where they're from. They aren't even necessarily trying to "convert" everyone, they are just showing love to "the lesser of these" that Christ bid us to do.

Just my 2¢

Locally, I can't think of any major charities that are NOT faith based.

[Military Mom]

Separation of church and state can walk a thin line at times. I'm not altogether sure that I understand all of the implications of the law. Sounds like it should be obvious, but in a case like this it's shaky.

As long as the funding is actually making a difference with our 'social ills' I think it's fine. The goal is to make our nation a better place, isn't it? And as long as the govt continues to fund other types of altrusitc organizations it sounds like a good idea. Sit back and watch and see....

I also read today that government has stopped funding mast cell research. Mast cells are found in human embryos and grown humans as well. I guess anti-abortion groups look at this kind of research as wrong for a myrad of reasons. But that is another topic for another day!

mm

[jamesglewisf]

I always wonder about this. I grew up working at a Christian summer camp. Every year the camp would get surplus food from the government for free. Sometimes it would be cheese, raisins, apples, whatever. It appears to me that they already give assistance to faith-based organizations, thus my confusion about this "new" policy.

I'm not sure I am for it. I would rather get larger tax breaks for giving to charitable organizations. Then I could give to a church, someone who was Jewish could give to a synagogue, and someone who was not religious could give to the United Way.

[keithster]

I still believe that one of the main reasons govt programs have failed with that there's no relationship or accountability with those they attempt to help.

Non-govt charities have accountability to those from whom they solicit donations.

The workers are low paid (usually) and are often there because of a calling. Their hearts are in it. They know the people they serve. They create relationships. Because of the relationships, those being served often feel some responsibility to the workers.

Many of the faith based charities require something of those being served. Work, attending church services, etc.

The results speak for themselves.

Chuck Colson's prison ministry is far, far more successful at help people stay out of jail than the programs in the prisons.

Results do matter more that intentions. That's why politicians get away with lying. We think that their intentions count for something.

[Nudnik]

I liked that plan first. If there is extra money, why create another level of government bureaucracy when there is already a functioning system in place?
But then I started to have second thoughts. I found the following:
1. This project is controversial. It will create another wave of objections, etc. We have enough controversies as is.
2. Jim’s point. Let people keep more money. And a tax-break would be a good reconciling point: all agree, just argue about its size.
3. Targeting these funds strictly for food would seem to keep the church and state separate. In fact, extra food money will allow church’s money previously spent on food, be redirected to fund religious activities.
The government is big as is. We should limit its activities, not to expand them. Religion is one of a few areas, which has been relatively free from the government, so far. I said “relatively” because of ubiquitous “In God we trust” ( not a correct slogan for a secular state!) and because we have chaplains in the military. I do not object to chaplains, soldiers cannot go to church on the battlefield or, often, in the peacetime. But the members of Congress can. Yet, there is a paid official position of the Congress chaplain. And why only a chaplain? The government is not supposed to endorse any particular religion…

[keithster]

One of the main reasons it's controversial is that the some in this country believe in one god: Government. Anything that takes control away from the govt is not good in their eyes.

If the goal is to help charities do a better job, then it's a good thing. Anything Christian has not had much cooperation from the Feds because of political correctness.

There are probably ways to do this without spending a lot more money. Just making some of the faith-based charities eligible for existing fed grants and such would be a good move.

Read Martin Gross's books and you'll get a good idea where to start hacking at the bloated govt. Amazing amount of waste. My educated guess is that you could cut 1/4 of the federal budget and the vast majority would never notice. Then you have to start going after the entitlement programs and that's when you'd hear squealing.

People would rather send the govt $1 and get about $0.25 back and call it free than to do it themselves.

Are we a secular state? The Federalist Papers talk about how a republic such as ours is only meant for a moral people and they talk about where morality cames from.

We have Sunday off (used to be a 6 day work week). Why Sunday?

Was the separation of church and state to keep the church out of govt or to keep the govt out of church (which was a big problem in Europe for a few centuries)?

[MumsyDee]

Which faith-based charities? Only Christian? Seems unfair to at least six other major religions. Would these charities use their power to help or deny help as a tool to convert as they did in Hawaii and to Native Americans?

I would go along with the idea completely if charities associated with all major faiths are included with the stipulation that they cannot deny assistance to individuals of other religions. (I'm speaking of major religions - not denominations of the Christian Religion).

[Mickyhoo]

They are talking about all faith based groups..

And if you think about it.. all groups are biased no matter what the group is. A group exists because people have common goals. I think the way it should be set up is to let all groups apply for the same funds based on goals, not affiliation.

Separation of Church and State was to keep the Government from founding a state religion, not to exclude religion from Congress. Our Country was founded for Religious freedoms, not to exclude religion.

[keithster]

I don't know about other religions, but as for Christian charities, I don't know of any that don't open their doors to all in need. There are some Christian groups at the forefront of helping people with AIDS.

I suppose there are other religious charities, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Anyone?

[Mickyhoo]

Catholic Charities (the name of the group) helps everyone via food banks and homeless shelters. One of the most visable ones is St Vincent de Pauls, which are located in many cities. They have thrift stores that you would see most often.

Salvation Army is another very visable faith based organization. They run homeless shelters, thrift stores, food banks, soup kitchens, job training/coaching for disable adults, Cristmas presents for children. They used to make you attend a service to stay the night in the shelters but that is very rare now.

Both of these help anyone without any "preaching". They will minister to you if you are interested but it is definantly not a requirement.