#266154 - 28/09/2005 13:03
The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Church + ??? = profit!
For those who don't want to register or use BugMeNot to read the article, the ??? in the above equation is "FEMA tax dollars." Basically, in the aftermath of the hurricanes, the US Government is expanding the ways in which it helps faith-based groups who assist with hurricane relief. In addition to the traditional model, where churches volunteer their time and lend their facilities during relief efforts, FEMA is accepting reimbursement applications, to cover (from the article) "a wide range of costs would be available for reimbursement, including labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water."
On the surface, this might seem like a good thing, taking those who are already contributing to the relief effort, and making sure they aren't overburdened by what really is an unprecedented tragedy. But, aren't these groups already receiving massive donations from the public at large? We Americans have opened our hearts and our wallets during this tragedy, and many of those funds are going to faith-based organizations. For groups that are supposed to be volunteer to begin with, does it make sense to have the government doling out funds for "labor costs and rent," especially when these groups are tax-free to begin with?
But don't take my word for it, here are some people who agree with me, again, from the article:
"Volunteer labor is just that: volunteer," said the Rev. Robert E. Reccord, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board. "We would never ask the government to pay for it."
Yet Benham said he would never accept a dime from the federal government. "The people have been so generous to give that for us to ask for reimbursement would be like gouging for gas," he said. "That would be a crime against heaven."
So, it appears that the religious groups with a conscience will justifiably refuse to accept these dollars, and I commend them for their conviction and dedication to their work. That means more handouts and giveaways for those organizations that aren't burdened by such qualms. Does anyone else have a problem with that?
The worst part is, it's not only human beings making the decisions on who gets how much money, it's human beings in our Government, which, regardless of who is in power, has never been a model of efficiency. I'd trust the leaders of our churches, mosques, and synagogues to divy the money amongst themselves before I'd trust some desk jockey at FEMA to ensure equitable distribution of the money. That is, if I felt this was a good idea in the first place, which I surely do not. I can already imagine the complaints of church X, mosque Y, or synagogue Z who feel they didn't get a big enough piece of the pie. Once you add money to any situation, even amongst the noble folks who volunteer their time at faith-based groups, bad things happen.
So, what say you, empegizens? Is this a fair, altruistic, and necessary response to the tragedy, or a handout to the religious right? Is it proper for our government to be in charge of which churches get extra money beyond the cost of supplies?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266155 - 28/09/2005 13:14
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 15/08/2000
Posts: 4859
Loc: New Jersey, USA
|
It sounds like a method that FEMA may be using to pay for the materials and labor these organizations supply while trying to avoid any problems with debates over the separation of church and state. I would hope that the charitable organizations accept the donations, and then use them toward further efforts.
_________________________
Paul Grzelak
200GB with 48MB RAM, Illuminated Buttons and Digital Outputs
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266156 - 28/09/2005 13:23
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I would have less of a problem (mind you, not no problem) if "Faith-Based Initiatives" didn't actually mean "Christian-Based Initiatives".
I still think that excluding explicitly religious organizations from the handouts is the appropriate thing. The US Government has always given money to charities that have a religious affiliation; it's just that they were required to abide by some rules that basically prevented them from proselytizing. This whole notion of "Faith-Based Initiatives" is really just a way to undermine those restrictions. (It does also allow a more widespread distribution of that money, since most neighborhood churches probably don't have the time to deal with those sorts of regulations, even if they're happy to comply with the restrictions in general, but I don't think that that sort of distribution is necessarily more effective.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266157 - 28/09/2005 13:30
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: pgrzelak]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
It sounds like a method that FEMA may be using to pay for the materials and labor
Materials, sure. I'd prefer that the government were the ones purchasing and distributing these materials to the religuous groups, but if it must be via reimbursement, I have very little problem wih that.
But labor? Aren't these *volunteers*? How can you say that the government is avoiding problems with separation of church and state when they are paying volunteers for their work? Who gets to decide how much their labor is worth? Does a displaced resident of New Orleans get a chance to make these same wages? Finally, no matter how noble the cause, shouldn't it be up to the donors whether these groups get funded for what you're calling "further efforts?"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266158 - 28/09/2005 13:33
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I would have less of a problem (mind you, not no problem) if "Faith-Based Initiatives" didn't actually mean "Christian-Based Initiatives".
I was certain that point would come up, but for now, I'd like to operate under the assumption that there's no hidden Christian agenda. Even in the absence of advocating one religion over another, I have a serious problem with tax dollars being funnelled towards only the most unscrupulous of religious organizations.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266159 - 28/09/2005 14:11
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 12/02/2002
Posts: 2298
Loc: Berkeley, California
|
Quote:
I would have less of a problem (mind you, not no problem) if "Faith-Based Initiatives" didn't actually mean "Christian-Based Initiatives".
Let's all remember, September 11th was a Faith-Based Initiative.
The matter of which religion we're supporting doesn't really matter to me. I'm opposed to this because charities are supposed to be doing the work the federal government can't/doesn't do. They're supposed to make the country/world better than it would have been if they didn't exist. When the government acknowledges that they can't do what they're supposed to do, and that they're going to pay churches to do what they acknowledge they should be doing, they become part of the federal government. It's clearly a violation of the seperation of church and state.
Matthew
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266160 - 28/09/2005 16:21
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I love how I've gotten two responses to my barb, but none to the rest of what I said, which was much more on-point.
However, I don't know that accepting remuneration for their volunteerism makes these charitable organizations unscrupulous. First, let's assume that they really are volunteers and not charitable organizations. That is, that they aren't redistributing what they receive, but that they give without receiving. I don't think that accepting thanks for that, whether it be in the form of appreciation or money makes them unscrupulous. Certainly there's probably no one on the other side of that coin, but just because they accept money that they didn't intend to get doesn't make them bad. Second, if they are charitable organizations, I don't see how accepting money from the government is any different than accepting money from individuals or non-governmental organizations, which they certainly already do. Unless there's some rider that makes them do something particular after the fact that they wouldn't otherwise do.
It just seems kinda silly to me that there might be these unscrupulous entities that are gambling that this particular, otherwise charitable, act is going to be the one to pay off big for them. It seems to me to be a little more along the line of "Thanks for helping out. I know you put yourself out for it. Here's me trying to make up for it and say thanks."
What does bother me is the implication that that sort of remuneration is restricted to religious organizations. Why should that money not also apply to the local athletic club that did the same thing? (Then again, I haven't RTFA, so I may be talking out of my ass.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266161 - 28/09/2005 16:23
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: matthew_k]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Weighing in from the conservative/religious viewpoint, my denomination, the SBC, has been heavily involved to date providing over 54,545 volunteer days and 4,704,413 meals. They certainly didn't need or ask for the government's help with any of this. As a Christian, I believe that it is my mandate, my joy, my fulfillment, my faith to help those that are in need. Neither the government nor their money is not included anywhere in that process.
I agree with Tony that if the government wants to acknowlege faith-based charities, they should continue to offer tax exemption, so that money given in the name of God, Allah, Spaghetti Man, etc... goes where it is meant to go. That's it.
As far as the perceived "proselytization," I can only tell you what I experienced at the 3 distribution centers I visited. If handing people a Bible with their supplies and having chaplains and counselors on hand to answer questions is offensive, it is only to those removed from the situation. Those needing relief seemed to recognize that we did what we did in the name of Jesus Christ and expected no less. There was no pushiness, or high pressure speaches or anything of that nature, simply help and a gift.
EDIT: Interestingly enough, while they were perfectly welcome to refuse the complementry Bible, I didn't see a single case of anyone doing so.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266162 - 28/09/2005 16:33
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: matthew_k]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Another thought I just had was that rather than re-imbursement why not simply work together. At the site where I was, we needed a couple extra forklifts. We didn't go out and buy them and then ask for a reimbursement. We simply told FEMA we needed some more forklifts. Sure enough within a day or two, they found some for us. Not sure why this kind of arrangement can't continue as is.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266163 - 28/09/2005 16:54
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
As far as the perceived "proselytization," I can only tell you what I experienced at the 3 distribution centers I visited. If handing people a Bible with their supplies and having chaplains and counselors on hand to answer questions is offensive, it is only to those removed from the situation. Those needing relief seemed to recognize that we did what we did in the name of Jesus Christ and expected no less. There was no pushiness, or high pressure speaches or anything of that nature, simply help and a gift.
EDIT: Interestingly enough, while they were perfectly welcome to refuse the complementry Bible, I didn't see a single case of anyone doing so.
Two points: just because it didn't happen near you doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And, honestly, I'm not a big fan of handing out Bibles in this situation. And did you consider that people might take the Bible because they didn't want to offend the people helping them? I know that you would probably not be offended if they refused, but some would be, and there's always the fear of biting the hand that feeds you. I think that if you find it necessary to hand out Bibles that you just have a bin that they can get one from if they choose to do so.
Here's an interesting notion, though. What if a person came to you that was obviously of a different faith? Someone like an Hasidic Jew or even something as simple as wearing a Star of David or a woman wearing a headdress. Would you hand out a Bible to that person? If so, wouldn't that be a form of proselytization? If not, wouldn't that be inequal? Would you have a copy of the Torah or Qu'ran available for them? Now what about when that person's religious affiliation is not as obvious?
My point is that none of those questions are easily answered. I know that it's your intention to be helpful, and you certainly are materially, but religion is a very personal thing, and promoting one, even casually, can be offensive, no matter what you do. You either have to offer a Bible to the obviously non-Christian person, which can easily be seen as proselytization, or not offer one, which is inequal and prejudicial. I have no problems with Bibles being offered. I'm sure that they are very helpful to a certain class of people, but they also create a barrier to others. So you either need to make other religious books available or not offer the one you happen to personally approve of.
Sorry, Tony.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266164 - 28/09/2005 17:24
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Quote:
just because it didn't happen near you doesn't mean that it doesn't happen
As I noted in my post:
Quote:
I can only tell you what I experienced at the 3 distribution centers I visited.
Honestly, you're overcomplicating things. We offered a Bible. We gave supplies. If we offended, we were "equal opportunity offenders."
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266165 - 28/09/2005 17:24
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: tonyc]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
As far as overtime goes, there are, believe it or not, positions at nay given church that are hourly wage jobs. The janitor is, most likely, not cleaning the toilets for free. The maintenance staff is not fixing things out of the goodness of their heart. They get paid to do these things. Now, the ministerial staff is an entirely different beast. I have never in my life met a minister that was paid by the hour. It is always more of a salary situation. Volunteers, on the other hand, are completely unpaid. As such there is no such thing as "overtime". 1.5 times nothing is still nothing.
Based on that, I have no issue with your everyday working stiffs getting paid OT and FEMA reimbursing them for it. Ministerial staff will not make overtime, so there is nothing to repay. Volunteers could get triple time, I don't care, they still make nothing.
As far as reimbursing for materials, I feel that that should only be for goods and services procured AFTER the church finishes with it's donations. At the distribution point I've been working at at the City, we have passed out untold millions of dollars worth of goods. A lot of it is, in fact, from churches across the nation. However, for the churches that are here, there is no way they can continue to operate as a distro point if there is nothing to distribute. VERY few churches could afford to spend more than a couple of hundred thousand and continue to remain solvent. The sheer volume of relief aid boggles my mind until I remember that we are one of a few distro points around and that we are replacing ALL the shopping centers and grocery stores (save Wal-mart) as well as most of the restraunts. Now, when these DONATIONS come in, there is still the problem of unloading, moving, sorting, and redistributing it. This required money, to be turned into fuel and maintenance costs. To expect a church group to provide that as well as the manpower is asking a LOT. Especially when you consider that these same churches have lost most of their members to displacement and that of the remaining, very few are still able to give anything back to the church. In other words, I have no issue with any organization being reimbursed for this sort of activity. Granted, the time may not actually cost anything, but everything else does. It rather makes me think of the "good samaritan" law. Basically, you can't get in trouble for breaking a law if it is for the purpose of saving someone's life. It frees you from the problem of having to think about whether you should break that door down to try and save someone in a burning building. Of course you should, but you might not if someone was going to sue you for vandalism after. Same goes for churches. They are enabled to provide far more help than they would have normally been able to provide, and in a manner that is far more efficient than anything the federal government can do, without the risk of outgiving themselves and having to close their doors permenantly. In closing, there should be no way that any church would be able to actually come out ahead in the deal. The way I see it, it just helps stretch the volunteers a little farther before they have to call it quits.
Now, if we're talking about paying people back for donations they have made, that's no different than what we do now. Treat it as a tax write-off. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for paying rent, I do have an issue with that. I mean, I wouldn't ask for rent if fema wanted to use my back yard as a storage facility. If they wanted to use my house..... different story.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266166 - 28/09/2005 17:29
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
To make myself clearer (yes, I've been asked to do that, and I'm not just babbling on. well, maybe I am, but it's been requested), what I'm trying to say is that just because some people don't feel right taking money for what they felt is volunteerism doesn't mean that other people that don't feel that ethical conflict are inherently less scrupulous. In fact, I find it hard to believe that any unscrupulous types would be so stupid as to hope that something they do for free will be the one thing that the governement is going to decide to reimburse them for. If that was their intention, I'm sure that there's more than enough government contract money floating around that would be a better bet. (Well, maybe Halliburton subcontract money.)
On the other hand, just because I don't think that these organizations are inherently unscrupulous for taking money doesn't mean that they should be given that money unless they meet the standards required by the government to receive those funds. Certainly those organizations that don't want to abide by those rules shouldn't be prevented from, uh, charitizing, but they shouldn't expect to get reimbursed, either. None of them should expect it, actually, but those that don't abide by the rules for it should expect not to get reimbursed. (Maybe that would actually make them more charitable. I don't know.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266167 - 28/09/2005 17:33
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Honestly, you're overcomplicating things. We offered a Bible. We gave supplies. If we offended, we were "equal opportunity offenders."
I don't think I am. You think that a Christian that came and saw you handing out Bibles had the same reaction as a Jew or a Muslim? Notably, you didn't tell me what you would have done if a Jew or Muslim (or Rastafarian or Taoist or Buddhist or FSMist or whatever) came by.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266168 - 28/09/2005 17:36
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I love how I've gotten two responses to my barb, but none to the rest of what I said, which was much more on-point.
Yeah, well I agreed with that part of your post, and didn't see a need to say "me too."
As to your point about there being no problem with people accepting money, especially if they do the work not knowing they'll get paid, you're only correct on the first cycle, and only if the funds are distributed equitably, which you've acknowledged isn't likely due to who's in charge. Now that these handouts are available and well-known, the potential for abuse skyrockets. I agree that groups that put out a ton of their own money not knowing they'd get anything back are probably not unscrupulous, but now that it's out there, I can see a lot of unscrupulous things happening.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266169 - 28/09/2005 17:40
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Quote:
Now, when these DONATIONS come in, there is still the problem of unloading, moving, sorting, and redistributing it. This required money, to be turned into fuel and maintenance costs. To expect a church group to provide that as well as the manpower is asking a LOT
Truth. Being relatively young and strong, most of my volunteering time was spent doing this.
<OT RANT>Please people, if you're going to bring down or donate a load of supplies, pre-organize everything (ie...diapers by size, cleaning supplies by type, food, water, etc...) box it, LABEL it, put it on pallets by category, then bring it. At that point they can pull it off the trucks and use it almost right away. Oh, and noone wants your crusty used clothes.</OT RANT>
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266170 - 28/09/2005 17:42
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
As I've said before, you might be right, but that's a bizarre gamble. If it becomes codified (and therefore not a gamble), then it's just contracting under a different name. So I'm not sure what the issue is, other than it potentially bypasses the non-religious clause the government has for funding such organizations, but that's effectively gone now anyway.
And, despite the possible inference, I'd much rather there be someone down there handing out food and Bibles than there be no one down there handing out anything at all.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266171 - 28/09/2005 17:43
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
Weighing in from the conservative/religious viewpoint, my denomination, the SBC, has been heavily involved to date providing over 54,545 volunteer days and 4,704,413 meals. They certainly didn't need or ask for the government's help with any of this. As a Christian, I believe that it is my mandate, my joy, my fulfillment, my faith to help those that are in need. Neither the government nor their money is not included anywhere in that process.
And that's what I like to see, and what will keep donations coming in to your cause. I suspect if the SBC were collecting taxpayer dollars on a large scale to pay their volunteers, that might dilute the message you're trying to send, and reduce the amount of private donations that come from people who think you're doing the right thing.
Quote:
I agree with Tony that if the government wants to acknowlege faith-based charities, they should continue to offer tax exemption, so that money given in the name of God, Allah, Spaghetti Man, etc... goes where it is meant to go. That's it.
Yeah, I thought you would agree. You're too damn reasonable.  The very point of my post was that, in doing what they're doing, FEMA is going to reward only the organizations that really don't deserve the money, not that anyone deserves it.
Quote:
As far as the perceived "proselytization," I can only tell you what I experienced at the 3 distribution centers I visited. If handing people a Bible with their supplies and having chaplains and counselors on hand to answer questions is offensive, it is only to those removed from the situation. Those needing relief seemed to recognize that we did what we did in the name of Jesus Christ and expected no less. There was no pushiness, or high pressure speaches or anything of that nature, simply help and a gift.
If you're not receiving FEMA money, and your only Government benefit is tax-free status, I have absolutely zero problem with you handing out a Bible. It's a shame other religious groups don't have the same convictions.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266172 - 28/09/2005 17:43
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Quote:
Notably, you didn't tell me what you would have done if a Jew or Muslim (or Rastafarian or Taoist or Buddhist or FSMist or whatever) came by.
Sure I did. Offered them a Bible. Give them supplies. You're still overcomplicating.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266173 - 28/09/2005 17:45
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
As far as overtime goes, there are, believe it or not, positions at nay given church that are hourly wage jobs. The janitor is, most likely, not cleaning the toilets for free. The maintenance staff is not fixing things out of the goodness of their heart. They get paid to do these things. Now, the ministerial staff is an entirely different beast. I have never in my life met a minister that was paid by the hour. It is always more of a salary situation. Volunteers, on the other hand, are completely unpaid. As such there is no such thing as "overtime". 1.5 times nothing is still nothing.
Based on that, I have no issue with your everyday working stiffs getting paid OT and FEMA reimbursing them for it. Ministerial staff will not make overtime, so there is nothing to repay. Volunteers could get triple time, I don't care, they still make nothing.
Er... Who said anything about overtime? Unless you know something about this that I don't, the reimbursements being considered are not in the form of overtime, they're in the form of reimbursement for any materials and labor. Mentioned in the article are carpet wear, payment for volunteer time, etc. So it doesn't work out to "three times zero is still zero." It ends up being paying for volunteer work, when that same payment could go to someone who doesn't happen to be part of a church, but needs a job.
Does that change your perspective?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266174 - 28/09/2005 17:49
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't see how. What if you were the one in distress and the place you went offered you a Qu'ran along with your food? You can say all you want right now that it wouldn't bother you, but it'd certainly make you feel weird. It also certainly implies that the offerer thinks his religion is better than yours. Isn't that offensive? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so.
Edit: Argh. I don't like that response. I'm going to try again.
Edited by wfaulk (28/09/2005 17:49)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266175 - 28/09/2005 17:52
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Let me put it this way: What is the purpose in handing out a Bible? Certainly I can see how it could help a Christian. But if you hand it to a Muslim, what is the implication? Is it the same as that flyer you get handed by some dude walking around downtown that immediately goes in the trash? Is it an implication that it'll help? Is it an implication that it'll help more than whatever faith they currently have?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266176 - 28/09/2005 17:53
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Of course I'd accept it. I have a Qu'ran in my house that someone gave me, along with a Book of Mormon and others. I've read some of both.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266177 - 28/09/2005 18:01
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
It's no fun arguing with someone being rational!
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266178 - 29/09/2005 01:28
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
Of course I'd accept it. I have a Qu'ran in my house that someone gave me, along with a Book of Mormon and others. I've read some of both.
Same here. If I wish to share my faith, I must respect others rights to do the same.
Unfortunately "Faith-Based Initiatives" in this situation may equal "Christian-Based Initiatives," since there aren't too many other faiths that are taking up the banner of service.
Edited by Cybjorg (29/09/2005 11:07)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266179 - 29/09/2005 08:29
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I don't see how. What if you were the one in distress and the place you went offered you a Qu'ran along with your food? You can say all you want right now that it wouldn't bother you, but it'd certainly make you feel weird. It also certainly implies that the offerer thinks his religion is better than yours. Isn't that offensive? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so.
Edit: Argh. I don't like that response. I'm going to try again.
So you´re already getting food, clothes, and supplies for free, and you also want them to give you a Koran?
That sounds a little greedy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266180 - 29/09/2005 12:30
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Okay, that was funny.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266181 - 29/09/2005 13:31
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Admittedly, I inferrred that no-one would pay the volunteers. That's just absurd. I was just pointing out that not everyone that works at a church is a volunteer.
That being said, While I'm working at city hall right beside the volunteers, doing the exact same work, I'm getting paid for it. At my regular salary as one of the highest paid people at city hall. Do I feel like I'm doing something wrong? Nope. Would I do the exact same work if I weren't being paid? Yep, just not as long. Now, when something tech comes up, I jump off the chow line and handle it. So I guess I'm just spending my free time helping out when I could be in my office reading BBS's.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266182 - 29/09/2005 14:24
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: lectric]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Quote:
"a wide range of costs would be available for reimbursement, including labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water,"
This seems to imply that it is not paying for volunteers, but instead for paid employee's time over and above the normal operations of the facility. Since additional volunteer work would not constitute a "labor cost" there should be no re-imbursment.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266183 - 30/09/2005 14:38
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: tonyc]
|
addict
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
I don't like the idea of funding faith based organizations with government money. I don't like the idea of bibles being handed out.
But that's ideaology. What I support is whatever will get the most help to the most people. I just hope that's also the goal of the faith based organizations offering aid. When I hear that bibles are being handed out I wonder why the resources necessary to provide the bibles weren't used for more food and water.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266184 - 30/09/2005 19:03
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: Dylan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
When I hear that bibles are being handed out I wonder why the resources necessary to provide the bibles weren't used for more food and water.
Because some people believe that meeting people's spiritual needs is as important as meeting their physical needs.
I guess I'll give my perspective on faith based programs here, though I must admit I'm largely uninformed about how it all actually plays out. On a practical level, I see it making great sense, though clearly government money should be spent on thigs we can all agree need to be done- such has handing out food and water. If Bibles are going to be handed out I think that's fine, but this should be paid for by the organization.
If I were in need and were handed (optionally) a Book of Morman with my food and water, I'd probably accept it and would not be offended. I'd also not be offended for it to be given to those undecided about things of faith (ie. I wouldn't find it threatening to my own ministry).
From a more philosophical point of view, the idea government faith based ministries makes me a little uncomfortable, but not for the same reasons as many of the other posters. If a religious organization accepts money from the government, my fear is that then the government will start regulating what that organization can do. And THAT is about as direct a first ammendment violation as you can get- telling religious organizations how to behave. And yet, once the government starts giving organizations money, how can we not expect it to do exactly that? We certainly don't want the government giving an organization money and then having that church use all of it to purchase bibles and tracts.
I'm guessing this issue has probably been hashed out and I'm just a little uninformed about how the process works, but I am fearful of both extremes when it comes to government giving religious organizations money- to regulate is to infring on our freedom of religion- to not regulate is to be irresponsible.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266185 - 30/09/2005 19:08
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
If a religious organization accepts money from the government, my fear is that then the government will start regulating what that organization can do. And THAT is about as direct a first ammendment violation as you can get- telling religious organizations how to behave.
This is not an unreasonable worry. A very similar thing goes on now, under the guise of the Interstate Highway system. It was found a long time ago that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate a national speed limit. So, in order to get around that, the federal government requires that states build the interstate system, but won't pay into it unless the state obeys the national speed limit "guidelines". The state is free not to follow them, but they won't get reimbursed for building all those roads.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266186 - 30/09/2005 19:10
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Quote:
If a religious organization accepts money from the government, my fear is that then the government will start regulating what that organization can do.
Interesting. My primary view of the the separation of church and state was to protect the state from the church. Should F.B.I.'s become common they would become the target for lobbying efforts, and we all know that the government is completely immune from lobbyists [/sarcasm]. I don't think there'd be any dark plots per se, but religions & factions fighting over who gets the biggest piece of pie is not something I think would be good for our nation. Best to leave the two totally apart in my view (three really: money, religion, government).
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266187 - 30/09/2005 19:13
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Ok, well I read the article linked now (my first response was directed more at the general idea of faith based funding) and there's one point that struck me in the article. If the government ASKED churches to make their facilities available, then it does make some amount of sense to reimburse them for that if the government is going to reimburse some of the costs.
I'm not saying it's a cut and dried issue, but it feels to wrong to say "hey, can we use your church to house some people? Ok? Great then. Yes we have this pile of money to help out with the costs of doing so, but we can't give any to you because your are religious."
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266188 - 01/10/2005 02:49
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
Interesting. My primary view of the the separation of church and state was to protect the state from the church.
Which is interesting, since I've usually viewed it the other way around: protection of the church from the state. Historical point-of-view, I guess.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266189 - 01/10/2005 12:05
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Which is interesting, since I've usually viewed it the other way around: protection of the church from the state.
As is the way I've viewed it. What the constitution says is "CONGRESS shall make no law . . .", which most directly means we are protected from the government doing something to us- i.e. telling us what to believe (or what not to). This is why I see the first ammendment as protecting the church from the state, not the other way around. Of course, if the church controlls the government and by doing so tells people what to believe, the result is the government violating the first ammendment by telling people what to believe. So I will agree that there is an inferred aspect of the first ammendment that protects the government from the church, but I don't think the government is protected from ALL influence of the church, only influence that would abridge people's rights to practice their chosen faith. As I read it, the wording of the 1st ammendment is prohivitive of the government directly, and religious institutions only indirectly by logical conslusion.
Of course, I am no lawyer- that's just my layman's understanding of the ammendment.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266190 - 01/10/2005 12:33
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
...I don't think the government is protected from ALL influence of the church, only influence that would abridge people's rights to practice their chosen faith.
Exactly. Otherwise our founding fathers would have been violating the Constitution as the wrote it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266191 - 02/10/2005 16:55
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
The US Government has always given money to charities that have a religious affiliation; it's just that they were required to abide by some rules that basically prevented them from proselytizing. This whole notion of "Faith-Based Initiatives" is really just a way to undermine those restrictions.
I'll just point out that some do "the right thing." There was a gal at work that was organizing some Katrina relief stuff by putting together some care packages. She posted a url that was very clearly to a religious organization. I had a fairly extensive anti-using-diaster-relief-for-proselytization rant email formulated, and then took a look at the website, which eplicitly said not to put any religious articles in the care kits. That impressed me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266192 - 02/10/2005 16:59
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I didn't mean to imply that most religious organizations aren't upstanding. I'm sure they are. But it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266193 - 02/10/2005 17:00
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
...I don't think the government is protected from ALL influence of the church, only influence that would abridge people's rights to practice their chosen faith.
Exactly. Otherwise our founding fathers would have been violating the Constitution as the wrote it.
Mega Dittos.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266194 - 02/10/2005 17:06
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'd like to point out that it should defend a persons right to atheism as much as it defends others' rights to theism.
And idle Christian rhetoric is no longer an integral part of our society as it was back then. Jefferson was barely a Christian, if at all, yet he used that language.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266195 - 02/10/2005 17:07
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Mega Dittos
Do you seriously want to lump yourself in with the dittohead crowd?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266197 - 02/10/2005 17:29
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
I'd like to point out that it should defend a persons right to atheism as much as it defends others' rights to theism.
And idle Christian rhetoric is no longer an integral part of our society as it was back then. Jefferson was barely a Christian, if at all, yet he used that language.
While I agree with you fully that it should, I'm against the modern trend of finding stuff in the Constitution that people think "should" be in there that is in fact not in there. If Congress wants to write an atheist protection act, by all means. Yet, as was pointed out, someone thought there should be a separation of church and state written into the Constitution, but if that was the original intent, the Constitution itself would have been broken by writing it. Or, more accurately, the way people interpret the interpretation would mean the Constitution was unconstitutional. I would argue that an official state sponsored religion, much like they escaped from in England, is different than an abstract notion of a higher being. With the exception of atheists and polytheists, a God with a capitol G isn't exclusionary to Christianity.
And personally I don't buy the argument that any religious references were merely part of the lingo of the day. Founding documents are hardly the place for that and doesn't explain the ten commandments being etched into the side of the Court itself. It was symbolic, not fashion.
People have every right to disagree in principle with the values and history of the founding of this country, but rewriting it out of the history isn't the way to go about it.
Dammit, you guys sucked me in again!
Edited by SE_Sport_Driver (02/10/2005 17:30)
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266198 - 02/10/2005 17:46
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
While I agree with you fully that it should, I'm against the modern trend of finding stuff in the Constitution that people think "should" be in there that is in fact not in there.
I dunno. It seems to me that by congress making no law to establish a religion, athiesim would deserve the same rights as any other choice about faith. Or to say it differently, people should be treated the same under the law no matter what they do or do not believe.
I don't think that means that athiests can expect to be insulated from people of faith, nor vice versa. But certainly athiests should not have any less rights than people of faith, nor should people of faith have any less rights than athiests.
Unfortunately, most of what I've seen regarded as "protecting people's right to faith/nonfaith" seems to be either the idea of insulating them against exposure to other perspective or denying the influence people's personal faith might have on public law. But neither of these concepts is what I read in the first ammendment. Rather I see the idea that the government cannot tell people what to believe.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#266199 - 06/10/2005 04:15
Re: The government's... uh... creative approach to hurricane relief.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Oh, no worries -- I didn't read your statement with that implication. What impressed me so much is that because of their specific instructions, it was very clear that they were there "to help", not "to help and as long as we're there, we'll share the Word." Preaching wasn't even a secondary concern.
On a side note, I can't remember who it was that said something along the lines that taking care of a person's spiritual needs is just as important as taking care of their physical needs. That was an interesting way of looking at the situation that I hadn't thought of, and, were I to put myself in the shoes opf someone who lost everything, even though I hate being proseletyzed to, I'd probably appreciate someone asking -- if it was done tactfully, and personally.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a ditto head, but that usually gets a laugh during debates I've had (in person political debates).
Previous Topic
Index