I wouldn’t object to faith-based orgs providing social services, as long as they have the appropriate (trained and licensed) staff on hand, and are compelled to comply with all laws and rules related to social services (confidentiality, etc.). Of course, it will be necessary to monitor any faith based groups that receive public funding. An endeavor of this size, using public dollars, will require close government oversight. Which pretty much takes us back to square one. If (under the already mentioned conditions) faith based groups work WITH social service agencies, it could be useful. If this is just another example of government dumping more human services off on organizations, which then simply shut down, it will be a waste of a tremendous amount of money.

Humor me folks…

Since Obama for all practical purposes has, at least as far as in ascertainable, decided to subvert the will of the American public my vote will go to Nader… Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI5EY5kqiBU

Maybe they “own” Obama already…just the same WE shouldn’t cave so easily. (Remember..there’s more of us than there is of them..)  There was also this examination of the recent FISA capitulation by Glenn Greenwald which caught my attention and is on the money.

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html

Cut the pentagon budget in half and there will be plenty of money for social services without involving the churches.  Get the military off our backs.

It seems to me that the way it ought to work is for the U.S. to fund a liason office to work with various religious organizations on programs to help the poor and disadvantaged. U.S. funds would be used to hire people based on their competence to do anti-poverty work and not religion. Churches would supply volunteers and funds from their own charities. I’m thinking this might be what Obama has in mind.

By cyrena, July 5 at 9:41 pm #

Well Fadel,
===============================
Thank you cyrena for your well-reasoned comment.
Though it’s clear that we don’t see eye-to-eye on every detail of current affairs and modern politics, I consider your passionate attachment to your principles and points of view a great asset rarely found in these times of shifting loyalties and principles. I continue to feel that there is a great spiritual affinity that connects me to you and few others who post on TD despite our different backgrounds.
Yes, the desire-dream to meet you in person one day is still there; let’s just hope that the economy wouldn’t make it harder! While I wait for better opportune times to meet some of the good people I met at TD, I extend an open invitation to anyone who would find him /herself in the vicinity of Baltimore, MD to be my guest for as long as three days, preferably weekends and long holidays. I have a little guest room in my apartment that can accommodate an acquaintance or a friend.

Keep up the good work and the great energy you demonstrate in advocating your causes!

How about outsourcing the pentagon to charity organizations.

I don’t know what the 60’s has to do with it; the constitution is much older than that.  In Europe they do social service programs without bringing religion into it.  In the US we want to get out of it on the cheap.  Call it “charity” instead of social security and it won’t be long before we’re tryng to get the elderly “off our backs” the way we did the poor under Clinton.  It takes a democrat to do what republicans can’t do with domestic programs.  It’s always different when a democrat violates the Bill of Rights.  We just can’t understand what the problem is.

Well Fadel,

You have to promise to visit me as well, even if I don’t have a particular faith aside from my humanist one. And, since Tony Wincher and I are in the same general geographical vicinity, that should be doable.

Basically, Tony reiterated my own point about the Muslim Charities. What happened there is simply NOT what America is supposed to be about, and none of what we’ve seen in the past 8 years is at all what we are about.

I remain ACTIVELY involved in all organizations that provide for social services, regardless of the affiliations, and I’m proud to do so. I’ve yet to be ‘kicked out’ or otherwise had my offers of assistance rejected just because of my own agnosticism. Admittedly a few have tried to ‘convert’ me, but as a general rule, they understand that I’m not ‘convertible’ and leave it at that. The bottom line is that we’re all committed to the same goals, and that’s what I believe Obama has in mind when he talks about bringing together people of various faiths, as well as the secularists among us, to accomplish those goals.

I have no idea how he plans to accomplish that in terms of funding, but already there are the standard fascists complaining about it, because he’s made it clear that discrimination won’t be tolerated, and anyone attempting to practice that, will simply not be eligible to receive that funding.

•  “In order to receive federal funds to provide social services, faith-based organizations … must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.”

But no sooner did he come up with this, the racists started whining…see below.

Obama Takes the ‘Faith’ Out of Faith-Based Initiative
•  “In his speech today on faith-based programs, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) proposed that religious groups cannot compete for government contracts unless they give up their freedom to consider religion in their hiring decisions, a radical proposal that effectively repeals Charitable Choice:

As soon as I saw the name, “Heritage Foundation” the ultra right wing think tank, I knew what to expect.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/07/01/obama-takes-the-faith-out-of-faith-based-initiative/

Here’s more:

•  “This is a complete reversal of the Charitable Choice language that President Bill Clinton signed in 1996. Obama’s plan says that when a faith-based organization takes federal dollars, it could be forced to hire an atheist or else lose its federal funding. Since people make policy, by losing the ability to control its people, the group would lose its ability to preserve its faith-based character. In other words, it would strike at the heart of the faith-based initiative.”

And THIS is the same mentality of course, that has plagued us for 8 years, and is what led to the atrocities committed against not only the Muslim Charities, but Muslims and anybody else of color in the US. It is a most poisonous ideology that was ushered along with the fascists back in 2000, and we can only hope that Obama’s efforts will begin to reverse some of that damage.

Now it is organizations like the Heritage Foundation that should be shut down, at least in my opinion.

Instead, deluded ideologues and Obama bashers go on and on about long standing non-partisan organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, as being some sort of secret “New World Order” organization.

The Heritage Foundation, (if you check their site at http://www.heritage.org) is exactly the kind of set up that has helped wreck havoc on our collective society.

Outraged,

Got it this time

•  “In this instance it is NOT the organization which is being funded, it is the INDIVIDUAL.  Ultimately the individual can use this allocation of funds anywhere it is accepted. If this individual CHOOSES to use it at a religion-based hospital that is their CHOICE.  However, if the funds go DIRECTLY to the religion-based hospital the HOSPITAL will BE THE ONLY PLACE TO RECEIVE THESE SAME SERVICES and THEY then will decide how those funds are re-allocated. (with a hefty cut for themselves..I’m sure)”

NOW I understand what you were referencing earlier about the difference between individuals being funded, (ie medicare) and funding that goes directly to the institution.

I can’t honestly have an informed opinion, since I don’t have a clue as to where all of the funds for these not-for-profit or alleged ‘faith-based’ facilities come from. I honestly don’t. I only know the HUGE difference between the cost to the patient between these facilities and the private facilities that the ultra-wealthy go to receive medical care. I don’t even know how much assistance the non-religiously affiliated faculties receive, but I’d be willing to venture that the ‘for profit’ don’t ‘forego’ federal funds funneled directly to them, under some legal provision.

It might be worth me checking into at some point. The hospitals in my own area are superb, and they are NOT religiously affiliated, nor are they run by the state. Rather, they are a CORPORATION, and the services are the crème de la crème, because the County represents one of the wealthiest in the state, possibly even the country (They make damn sure these wealthy old white folks have the ultimate in medical care at their disposal). So the benefit to me as a poor person becomes a trickle down sort of thing. (there’s actually a term for that, but I can’t remember it. Still, you know what I mean).

So, it could be a simple enough matter for all of these facilities with supposed religious affiliations to just SEPARATE themselves from any association with any particular religion or other ‘cultural’ ID, and just be done with it. Cynical, yes I suppose it is, but when practices or policies cannot accommodate shades of grey; then that’s what it comes to.

And, that actually IS my complaint about some of these ‘laws’.  They lack the application of Jurisprudence, which I believe is absolutely essential to maintaining a rule of law that makes sense. We can make up any laws we want, but if they are, …on the books, nothing more than a bunch of words that have no applications to anything other than black and white, they’re virtually worthless in addressing the needs of a homogenized society.

So I understand your point on the school bus issue as well, but that doesn’t mean that I think it’s no a wasteful use of the legalities. In a more utilitarian concept, (and we know perfectly well that this has been and is still the case in many areas of the country) the school bus would pick up a bunch of school kids in one neighborhood spot, and drive them across town, or over the mountains and through the woods, and drop them all off in another spot. The kids would walk from their homes to the pick up-spot, and then they would walk from the drop-off spot to their respective schools. THAT would be the socialist/utilitarian way for the community/tax payers to invest their money to assist the most people. Maybe that makes too much sense, or maybe our very complicated dissections of certain laws are a total waste of efficiency. I don’t know. Jurisprudence is complicated, but at this point in my life, I’m pretty much committed to it..ever the pragmatist and the utilitarian

Part 2 of 2

Thanks for the link to the article. I appreciated it, and will share it with a group/’organization’ of which I am a member. Humanists.org. Our mission statement is ‘Doing Good Without God”. We meet monthly, and share resources and ideas with another few organizations such as our own counties “impeach bush’ chapter.

Least it be confused or forgotten from earlier posts, (as if anybody really cares) my own *personal* ideology is HUMANIST, and that’s where my own version of ‘faith’ lies. I don’t ascribe to any beliefs in a supernatural being or entity, but I also have no problems accepting and/or respecting those that do, because overall, pluralism is here to stay, as long as the human race has the ‘properties’ that it has.

I find it very ironic, (and sad) that it took 25 years for the World Community to agree to recognize the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes recognizing and respecting their language, culture, traditions, and yes..giving them back some of their long ago stolen land. Is there any surprise that the US, Australia, and Canada were the three nations that refused to sign on to this convention? Not really…it had to be the ‘giving back of the land’ part that they especially didn’t like, but they also don’t want to recognize any cultures, traditions, or religions other than their own.

Now I should add that SINCE Australia changed leadership last fall, they are now prepared to sign on to that Treaty/Convention, and they’ve already taken steps to make amends to the Aborigines of the state. So, it’s all politics, eh?

Ah, but I digress. Got stuck on the pluralism thing, and ya gotta admit, it is complicated.

Still, I get your point on how the budgeting works in public v private. And we know the score on that. As long as these special interests prevail, EVERYTHING becomes privatized, since that seems to be the goal.

Texas long ago privatized it’s roads/highways, and my own hometown city of Los Angeles has attempted to do the same, though I don’t think they’ve been successful so far. Charging citizens to use the public roads by way of a toll is a travesty that fits right in with all the rest of the privatization that is intended to eventually push one huge section of the population even further to the periphery, while the elite remain at the core, controlling all resources. We’ve watched that happen for centuries now, to the Native American communities.

By Tony Wicher, July 5 at 1:47 pm #

Fadel,

Until now, what you say about the faith-based initiative has been true. However, we do not know how Obama will change this program. If under an Obama administration there were no discrimination, and Muslim churches were treated equally with Christian and Jewish churches (and those of other organized religions)then I presume you would have no problem with it. So let’s see if this discrimination goes on in an Obama administration or not. If it does, I will join you in protesting it. If Obama is sincere, this is precisely where he can “bring us together” and show that he really believes in democracy and equality for all human beings. November is not far away. Let me know what you hear from any Muslim ministers.
==================
OK. Tony! Thank you for your remarks! Though I am suspicious, I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt! I don’t plan to die soon, therefore let’s hope that we both survive through at least the first year of an Obama’s presidency, then we will have an opportunity to exchange notes on this subject! If you’re right, that would be a great gift for me and I would feel obliged to visit you and pay my respects in person, and hopefully we can have a little celebration together in the spirit of leaps of faiths!

An article at the online site for Dissent magazine by Mitchell Cohen makes a great case for HOW these types of issues should more appropriately be addressed.  At least in my opinion and also in the larger sense.  Some excerpts:

“...The U.S. is, and has always has been, a country in which religions thrived, partly due to traditions of tolerance and an acceptance of pluralism fostered by the separation of religion and state. It goes back to the earliest phases of American history. This doesn’t mean there hasn’t been prejudice (for example, against Catholics in the nineteenth century). And racial prejudice and persecution constitute a whole other, vicious matter, the greatest disgrace of American history. Nonetheless, the U.S. was the first country whose constitution barred state support for a national church, and that has had a long-term impact…...”

“.... Still, we cannot say often enough today that the modern liberal state was an act against civil wars created by societies dominated by religion; it is only as the domination of the public realm by religion ends that open, liberal, and social democratic (or socialist, if you prefer) societies become possible. When religious movements are triumphalist, when they believe that they can assert themselves inexorably in the public realm, liberal and social democratic values are jeopardized. (Those of us who identify with the left want liberal states to be social-democratized—but that is another matter and one that is very complicated and multidimensional in our globalizing era.)

In my view, a secular state needs a humanist basis. Yes, that means that I think secular humanist culture should be privileged in liberal democracy (or in what I would prefer, social democracy) but not religion. The reason is that it can encompass religious lives, whereas religious culture cannot do the same for secularism and atheism. Humanism, with its Renaissance origins (among thinkers who were mostly religious in some way), fostered pluralism by legitimizing multiple authorities, leading people to evaluate for themselves, to see varied points of view, not just to accept a last word from one authority [2] Some of these arguments and formulations were presented before in a different context in Mitchell Cohen, “Auto-Emancipation and Anti-Semitism (Homage to Bernard-Lazare),” Jewish Social Studies, Fall 2003.. These are prerequisites of citizenship in a free, pluralistic society – a society that assumes its members are grown-ups and can make choices about different options in life—secular, religious, or some mix—and then also can legitimately change their minds.

But pluralism, radicalized, can also create a sense that nothing unites or even links people; that linkage is essential for citizens in a democratic society. I think that this problem of fragmentation can be offset by an amended version of what John Rawls, the American philosopher, called “public reason.” Democratic debate must finally address “citizens as citizens.” I think citizens must be able to express arguments on the basis of their own particularities—whether political, cultural, religious—but there must be a point at which they translate their deliberations and claims into a common political language. (Rawls thought to separate public reason and secular reason, but I would demur on that)....”

http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=928

>I think Mr. Cohen’s assertion that democratic debate which addresses “CITIZENS AS CITIZENS” and that other particularities be translated into a “COMMON POLITICAL LANGUAGE” is correct and the ONLY WAY I can see to incorporate ALL.  Because one cannot start out from a premise which has ALREADY disregarded a segment of a pluralist society.  It also doesn’t mean that everything will in effect then become a “happy, happy, joy, joy” event but more one of bringing ALL perspectives to the table and finding that common ground through common language and common interests.

Re by Fadel Abdallah, July 4 at 9:29 am #

I beg to disagree! Obama’s talk on this issue is intended to be a pandering specifically to two religious groups: The Jews and the Evangelists! It will continue to particularly discriminate against one group:The Muslims, who have seen their charities either closed or placed under constant surveillance to the point that they were rendered unable to function! I do have inside knowledge and firsthand experience on this issue. Therefore, this so-called Faith-Based Initiative is a recipe for empowering certain religions and an invitation for religion to further encroach into politics. It should be eliminated, not redefined or renamed. I believe that Obama does not have good intentions on this issue!
—————————————————————————-
Fadel,

Until now, what you say about the faith-based initiative has been true. However, we do not know how Obama will change this program. If under an Obama administration there were no discrimination, and Muslim churches were treated equally with Christian and Jewish churches (and those of other organized religions)then I presume you would have no problem with it. So let’s see if this discrimination goes on in an Obama administration or not. If it does, I will join you in protesting it. If Obama is sincere, this is precisely where he can “bring us together” and show that he really believes in democracy and equality for all human beings. November is not far away. Let me know what you hear from any Muslim ministers.

Re: Cyrena

Per your comment: “If you’re suggesting that these hospitals should not be able to treat patients who are qualified for medicare and Medicaid or whatever else they call such things, then I disagree with that as well.” 

In this instance it is NOT the organization which is being funded, it is the INDIVIDUAL.  Ultimately the individual can use this allocation of funds anywhere it is accepted. If this individual CHOOSES to use it at a religion-based hospital that is their CHOICE.  However, if the funds go DIRECTLY to the religion-based hospital the HOSPITAL will BE THE ONLY PLACE TO RECEIVE THESE SAME SERVICES and THEY then will decide how those funds are re-allocated. (with a hefty cut for themselves..I’m sure)

As regards your school bus story.  It might on the surface “seem” unfair, however your family WAS OFFERED the school bus service IF you went to the public school.  In effect you weren’t “denied” service.  Your family choose not to partake. 

Why wouldn’t they take just “one or two” kids on the big ol’ bus when its not EVEN out of the way.  This would open a whole “big can of worms”.  Should the state ship ONE parochial student then deny another ...?  As the circumstance progresses then the state would be transporting ALL parochial and private school students.  Wouldn’t this then be subsidizing private or religious based schools?  How many EXTRA buses would the state pay for and how much would it cost to transport all these thousands of children.  The up front premise being that every child IS offered an education and transport to get that education by the state.  However, if one refuses the offer that person is free to go elsewhere.

Your quote: “And, I still don’t see that happening, because the same people that don’t want to provide care at taxpayers expense for STATE facilities, aren’t gonna pay religious entities to do it either.”

Here, I disagree.  These religious entities are large money powered interests and will lobby to get those monies whether citizens like it or not.  Why are we supporting Israel financially..?

So the end result would be that these entities… religious or private interests will have the secured the funds and will profess to offer a service which won’t materialize in actuality.  (Like Halliburton and KBR)  After they skim off the top, there won’t be any VALID service available for “social programs for the poor”.

State run programs are run differently.  (Not that there always wonderful)  However, they are run by BUDGETING and not PROFIT.  So monies are allocated for administrative costs, AND ALL THE REST IS DISTRIBUTED TO THE NEEDY.  Whereas, in the case of parochial or private interests the state is CHARGED for services AT THE MARKET RATE “SUPPOSEDLY”.

To add insult to injury, budgeted state run programs pay their staff a much higher income and still distribute more funds to the needy AT A LOWER COST than privately run programs.  It’s win/win, at least as far as services rendered at comparable cost.

I have no problem funding organizations that Actually help the needy- but I do have a problem funding Orgnaizations who demand adherence to their form of ideology.
wouldn’t the so called ‘Evalgelicals’ be outraged if a homeless person must proclaim Mohammad as their savior before getting a hot meal or a cot to sleep on?
I’m over the Christian Taliban profiteer mentality which has highjacked this country for the last 3 decades.Their actions prove their words to be mere Cons. In fact they have become Industries with Profit Margin loopholes.These Mega Churches with their legion of heretics have been allowed to accumulate wealth without regard to their mission statements. When will they build their own Vaticans lined in gold? Oh yeah, that’s already started with the Self Anointed minions like Hagee,Dobson, Parsley…Snake Oil Dealers who prey on the weak of mind and soul. Who do they Serve? “Could it be Satan?” time to put a choke chain and leash on these Beasts.

Maybe we need to look at this from the standpoint of the desperately poor in our country - rather strange that in a country which some insist must be a ‘Christian’ country there are hundreds of thousands of desperately poor people, but that’s a whole other issue.

The state is unwilling through social legislation or financial subsidy to help the poor.  Social outreach programs for the poor by religious communities - Christian, Jew or Muslin - if denied government money will close their doors. 

Who loses?  The very poor of course. Seems to me that Obama is trying to work it out so that in the end those suffering the vicissitudes of extreme poverty will be able to find some relief from their suffering. 

Take Congress or this president to task?  Good luck. Cut off the funds to social outreach programs sponsored and run by various religious communities?  In the name of separation of church and state, go right ahead.  But keep in mind who loses.

1 of 2

Outraged,
•  “Religions(writ large) have NEVER proven any valid insight or factual superiority for dealing with social issues.  They claim it and they eschew it, but reality paints a quite different picture”.

I agree with this. I did the first time. I’ve never believed that religions, (writ large or small) have any superiority in dealing with social issues. If anything, the writ large portion of it makes social problems worse. In fact, it CREATES them. (or at least that is oftentimes the case)

I agree with this as well..

“…But I digress, we CAN and many countries DO..care for their citizens.  The fact that this is not happening currently shouldn’t be interpreted as “we can’t do it” but more one of, “we DEMAND it be done”.

But, I agree with a slight deviation. I know we CAN do it, because we HAVE done it. (care for out citizens) So I’ve never interpreted it as ‘we can’t do it’. What I specifically said is that currently the state WILL NOT do it. And, it didn’t just get that way. The state hasn’t done if for decades now, largely because these same selfish capitalists (the ones living among us) don’t want their tax dollars spent that way.

And, I agree with this as well,

But WE own this country and by LAW we can take it back.  If religions and their various “initiatives” want to operate within the law, that’s fine.

WE do own this country, and by LAW, we SHOULD take it back. I’ve been hollering that from the rooftops before we lost it entirely. So on nearly all of this, you’re preaching to the choir. I agree with you, as I generally do. I’ve never suggested that the government should fund religious activity.

But when I spoke to the imbalance, I WAS thinking…because I generally do. Maybe I should not have called it an imbalance or a ‘flaw’. Taken at face value, it isn’t a flaw at all, to keep religious activity separate from the government. However, there is a great deal of ambiguity is what we call funding religious activity. I don’t call what these hospitals do (especially the teaching hospitals) as ‘religious activity’ Sorry, there’s just no way for me to conjure that up. So if you’re suggesting that the care of the patients in these hospitals is some sort of religious activity, I have to respectfully disagree. If you’re suggesting that these hospitals should not be able to treat patients who are qualified for medicare and Medicaid or whatever else they call such things, then I disagree with that as well.

Here’s another example of how this perfectly valid ‘protection’ provided in the Constitution is twisted in a way that allows people to fall though the cracks. I attended Catholic school for 13 years. (my sister lucked out when my dad snatched her out in the 6th grade, after he got into it with the nuns). Now of course the schools operated primarily from tuition paid by the students. (presumably the nuns worked for free, but we had as many lay teachers as nuns, so they had to be paid by somebody). Fine. There was absolutely no reason for the state/tax payers to fund anything to do with those schools. If people wanna send their kids to a parochial school, then it should be on their own dime.

But, there was a public school a block away from my own elementary school. (also an elementary school). The taxpayers (my parents among them) paid for the school bus service to take the kids to and from that public school. Can you think of any reason why, (since my parents paid taxes) we should not have been able to take that same bus, as long as we got on it at the same place, and got off of it at the same place as the rest of the school kids? Well, we couldn’t. We walked, and not just the block from the public school to our Catholic school, but from home to school and back home again. Why? Well, because we attended that religious school.

Part 2 of 2

In short, anything can become twisted and perverted, no matter what the original intent may have been. Just as these faith freaks who ARE supposed to serve the public, because of the oath that they take to do exactly that, decide that their ‘faith’ allows them to decide when they WON’T serve the public. (like the pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control).

As for this, I agree as well…

“Government funded religious activity IS A NECESSARY FIRST STEP TO A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.”

But that takes us right back to what is ‘religious activity’. If religious activity can be characterized by anything that happens in an organization that is associated with a religious entity, like a hospital or school, then we would have become a theocracy long ago. But I never worried about us becoming a theocracy until George Bush and his ‘movement’ came along.

And, I still don’t see that happening, because the same people that don’t want to provide care at taxpayers expense for STATE facilities, aren’t gonna pay religious entities to do it either. So I guess my larger concern is getting these religious entities OUT of what are clearly government entities, like the military. And that has become a humongous nightmare under the shrub’s regime; people being harassed in the military by the ‘Christian forces” to convert or whatever else. That is a larger concern for me than hospitals collecting medicare for services rendered, even though they might be connected to a religious entity.

Re: Cyrena

As to your quote: “This lack of balance is only ONE of the flaws of the Constitution, but I’m all for Separation of Church and State.”

I do not now… nor will I EVER believe, think, feel, or reason that this was ” only ONE of the flaws of the Constitution”.  This WAS a very deliberate proposition TO KEEP RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT, in any and EVERY WAY.  This isn’t a “flaw” it is a protection!  What are you thinking…?

Re: Cyrena

Your testament to “religious based” hospitals and the like only endorses my position that they DO NOT NEED nor should ever be funded by the government.

Please take note in the fact that when I speak of religion, I very precisely AND adamantly speak of the organizations themselves and NOT the individuals who may adhere to a certain theology.  There is a monumental difference between the two.  I am not making the assertion that individuals within a religious organization are uncaring or insincere.  But these are two very separate things.

Religious “ENTITIES” have never suffered “a lack of funds”, it is how they choose to allocate them.  In this, one can see that allocating them as they see fit is…well..their choice.  But to claim that they should be funded BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS is very much “another ball game”.

Religions(writ large) have NEVER proven any valid insight or factual superiority for dealing with social issues.  They claim it and they eschew it, but reality paints a quite different picture.

As to the issue of the state NOT protecting those who are their own, this again is a separate issue.  We live in the RICHEST country in the WORLD.  The vicious capitalists and their degenerate “world power” sociopaths have and are continuing siege on our country.  This predicament is undermined by those on the world stage who, in fact, WOULD like to see America fall, and although it’s hard to blame them, we live here and DO NOT and HAVE NOT KNOWINGLY endorsed this serious psychotic “adventure”.

But I digress, we CAN and many countries DO..care for their citizens.  The fact that this is not happening currently shouldn’t be interpreted as “we can’t do it” but more one of, “we DEMAND it be done”.  The current situation has “gone global” and the bottom line is CAPITALISTS do not care about international nor local truisms but rather aspire to the “almighty dollar”.  In their world, less than a dollar is the value of a human life. They’ve PROVEN this time and again, HERE as well as “there”.

But WE own this country and by LAW we can take it back.  If religions and their various “initiatives” want to operate within the law, that’s fine.  However, NEVER should they be funded by government.  Government funded religious activity IS A NECESSARY FIRST STEP TO A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.

Part 1 of 3

Oh my! What a lively conversation. I do love it, (as well as the comments) except of course it has to be viewed in light of this comment by Obama,

•  “…“Some of these questions are difficult,” he said in an interview, “and I don’t have them all worked out.”

NO KIDDING! These ‘questions’ are SO difficult, that they are virtually IMPOSSIBLE to ‘work out’ in a way that will be OK with everybody. It can’t happen. But, I too give him points for trying, because it suggests that he is acknowledging reality.

On this Outraged, you’re right:

•  “The constitution doesn’t aver a “right balance between excessive entanglement of government with religion”.  It calls FOR A SEPARATION between CHURCH AND STATE. Period.”

This lack of balance is only ONE of the flaws of the Constitution, but I’m all for Separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, what one calls excessive entanglement isn’t so easily defined, and it will never be. Then again, maybe it can be. I just don’t know how that can be worked out these few hundred years later, to actually make it so.

What you say here is correct as well:

“The government ALREADY DOES THAT, the issue here is that religion SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED BY GOVERNMENT in any way. “

Here you’re suggesting that EJ is claiming (in a backward way) that government doesn’t respect the ‘identity’ of religious organizations. I don’t think that’s what he’s saying.

But, since you’re also correct here, there’s something else to consider.

“it is well established that religions gain converts by seeking out the traumatized, poor, uneducated and infirm.  This is when a person is most vulnerable and they KNOW that, yet with vicious intent they see.”

This is REALLY true. So, ‘religion’ should never be funded by the government. I agree. But, I would advise against making broad-based absolutes. I didn’t hear or read anywhere in this, that religious organizations were any better at providing services than the state is. In my opinion, they are not. I also don’t believe that subsidizing social organizations that happen to have religious affiliations is the same as ‘funding’ religion. Just my own take.

On the other hand, the reality is that the STATE HAS FAILED to provide these services, and over the decades, has outsourced it’s responsibilities to multiple organizations, many of which have religious names and ideologies attached. Some of these organizations are extremely dangerous, using their ‘help’ to enforce their often extreme and perverted ideologies on those who would seek their help. Just as often, (probably more often) some of these organizations have provided for these needs WITHOUT forcing their ideologies on to the recipients of their charity, and more important, the assistance would not be available otherwise.

The first part of this as a case in point is my own K-12 education in the Catholic system of education. Of course it included the standard ideology, and all of the stuff that goes with it. Did that ‘indoctrinate me’? Actually, it pointed out (for me at least) and probably far sooner than happens for the average person, the extraordinary hypocrisies that exist in most organized religions. So, it cannot be assumed that anything with a religious connection obviously carries with it the indoctrination.

Another poster here has made the same connection to hospitals with religious affiliations that accept federal funding, and yet will deny a woman’s right to choose (to terminate a pregnancy). Well guess what? One of those southern states, (I can’t remember which right now) has forbidden any abortions to be performed in state hospitals at state expense. That’s pretty jacked-up. The same happens in many Texas hospitals, (the nurses refuse to scrub for such procedures) and many pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control, citing their ‘faith’.

Part 2 of 3

In Louisiana after Katrina and Rita…the ‘state’ was nowhere to be found, including the National Guard. (because they were in Iraq & Afghanistan). Any ‘assistance’ provided in terms of actually ‘assisting’ the people in that emergency, was largely provided by religious organizations that were local to the area. Blackwater provided the opposite kind of ‘assistance’ that Naomi Klein addresses in Disaster Capitalism. Eventually FEMA showed up, and f’ed-up the whole thing even more.

More on Hospitals…I was born at White Memorial. I never had a clue until sometime around 10 or 15 years ago, that it was religiously affiliated. Even then, I couldn’t remember WHAT affiliation it was. I had to look it up just now.

***“White Memorial Medical Center (WMMC) is a not-for-profit, faith-based, teaching hospital, which provides a full range of inpatient, outpatient, emergency and diagnostic services to communities in and near downtown Los Angeles.
Keeping our communities healthy has been the mission of White Memorial Medical Center ever since our hospital was founded by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1913.”***

http://www.whitememorial.com/

The delivering physician was a female, and I have no idea if she was of the 7th day Adventist faith. Probably not. Neither were either of my parents. My mother used that hospital because they didn’t have much money, and the clinical services provided for obstetrics was good, and cheap. It’s highly likely that the female physician would NOT have had an easy time finding a ‘state’ hospital to work in.

Same thing with my sister, born 6 years later in a Catholic Hospital. My parents weren’t Catholic either, but Queen of Angeles was then, (and continues to be for certain things) an excellent hospital, and it was reasonably priced as well. That same hospital later provided life saving psychiatric medical services for my mother. She was there, (as opposed to some other hospital) because that’s where her non-Catholic doctor practiced and saw his patients. Other physicians I know in the area have staff privileges at multiple hospitals, a few of which are ‘faith based’. Neither they nor their patients happen to be ‘matched’ by religious affiliation with these hospitals. Some don’t HAVE a religious affiliation, when they come in, or when they leave.

So, what should we do? Just get rid of all of those hospitals? I’d like to think that we won’t. That’s what happened to the STATE/COUNTY facility that served the poor and underserved people of Los Angeles at Martin Luther King Hospital, until it was closed down. Now they aren’t ‘served’ at all. So much for the State provided social services.

And what about all of these educational institutions of higher learning that have religious affiliations? Are we supposed to disallow federal loans for any students that attend those schools? I guess that would work out well enough, if we want to be sure that only wealthy people attend them. I don’t like THAT idea at all.

To reiterate my point, these facilities DO serve an important function in nearly all communities in the US. Can the state do it better? In most cases that I’m familiar with, they don’t. The Santa Clara County Medical Centre in San Jose California is an excellent example of one that DOES serve the community well, and the wound/burn management unit is one of the best in the nation. Still, they work in conjunction with Catholic Charities for a number of their out patient social services. I was a recipient of those combined services for over 2 years when I was unemployed, since it took the federal state bureaucracy nearly 3 years to finally award me my own money. (that I’d worked for nearly 30 years for).

Part 3 of 3
I’m equally familiar with the resources that are provided by various religious organizations in communities like those that Obama is familiar with. In all of the hullabaloo about Rev Wright and Trinity Church of Christ, very, very, little was mentioned about the services that church provides to the community it serves. It tends to the homeless, those suffering from AIDS and others needing hospice services; again—*NOT* provided by the state, because the state never much cared about addressing that epidemic to begin with. Elder care, child care, and similar services are also provided. Can the state do better? Again. They haven’t.

Have a look at the ‘care’ our veterans receive. That too was ‘outsourced’ long ago, and it sucks. Was it always this way? No. My disabled veteran dad received services from the VA until Regan. After that, he was very fortunate to have another option, since the VA was determined to cut off the leg that he still has, to avoid treating it. It was even before that, (when the same asshole was Gov of Calif) that all of California’s state psychiatric facilities were closed down as well. Does that mean that all mentally ill people just evaporated? Of course not.  Either these various organizations picked up the slack, or these citizens were just shit out of luck. (as if being crazy wasn’t already pretty bad luck).

So, secular VOLUNTEERS (like me) team up with volunteers from a variety of these religiously affiliated organizations to provide for these services when we can, and with whatever means we can manage. And most of those services lately have been for vets and their families. (food lines on bases here at home…the state can’t/won’t even feed them.) That means that the volunteers from the religious organizations become just as valuable as my own agnostic hands and mind. When people are hungry, they don’t much care what the feeder thinks or believes.
The amount of work involved doesn’t allow much time for indoctrination. That’s not to say that this indoctrination doesn’t happen, because I know that it does. But, it’s as pervasive at the state level of the same services as it is with the religious organizations, and sometimes more.

Now Fadel is concerned about the fact that Muslim charities have been shut down by the State under the fascist administration currently destroying the country, and so he thinks this is a bad idea as well. (cooperation between the state and religious organizations). All I can say to that is that this is not the US, (currently) and that is not the practice of the US under the Constitution. But, we haven’t been using the constitution in at least 8 years. So I don’t believe that to be a valid example. These criminals should simply have THAT crime, (shutting down those Muslim charities) added to their already very long rap sheet.

Now when the STATE actually finds a way to administer to all of these needs with absolutely no help from any agency or organization with religious affiliations, then that will be a wonderful thing. We can be like Cuba. Until then, Obama has a lot of details to work out. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes, but I do appreciate his efforts at acknowledging the reality, and hoping to find a utilitarian means of dealing with it.

Re: Steve

Your comment, “And those are the people working to stop Obama.  The sooner the big consumers are dealt with, the sooner mankind shifts to a sustainable existence.  Its not hard to spot these people.”

Can you elaborate?  I’m curious as to your supposition.  How has Obama endorsed you’re assertion?  Obama has endorsed Universal Health care ( a biggy), isn’t this endorsing “big business/ie. consumers?  Why doesn’t Obama stand by the majority and NOT endorse immunity for telecoms or single payer health care?

Sure..the pundits “claim” that those who support single-payer health care and are against immunity for the telecoms who have participated in the ILLEGAL spying of innocent Americans are “liberals”, however the fact remains…THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT ENDORSE THIS.  So..is everyone a “liberal”?  I think not.

People are by and large caring and discerning.  To make some acclimation that this is NOT true is BS.  Are you attempting to further an erroneous “agenda”?  If Obama cares about the citizenry of the America why is he undermining the efforts of the same?

My dad used to say, “Shit or get off the pot”.  I confer.  And we haven’t even given careful analytical thought to this recent “faith-based initiative” scam.

EJ:

Your quote: “And give Obama points for acknowledging how hard it is to find the right balance between avoiding excessive entanglement of government with religion on the one hand and respecting the identity of religious charities on the other. “Some of these questions are difficult,” he said in an interview, “and I don’t have them all worked out.”

The constitution doesn’t aver a “right balance between excessive entanglement of government with religion”.  It calls FOR A SEPARATION between CHURCH AND STATE. Period.  You are attempting to qualify that some implied intermingling of religion and government is an applicable “right”.  That absolutely runs CONTRARY to the law.  So EJ, is “some” torture OK then also…?  You also claim that, the government should respect the “religious identity” of charitable organization.  Which really is a backward statement and makes the implication that the government doesn’t.  The government ALREADY DOES THAT, the issue here is that religion SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED BY GOVERNMENT in any way. 

It is well established that religions gain converts by seeking out the traumatized, poor, uneducated and infirm.  This is when a person is most vulnerable and they KNOW that, yet with vicious intent they seek their quarry like a vulture that preys upon the half dead carcasses of its victims. 

As for Obama, this faith-based initiative is a scam proposition.  There isn’t any credible evidence that religion is better at addressing societal ills than the state.  In fact, quite the opposite is true if one ACTUALLY LOOKS.  While they spew repeatedly that this is the case, history proves them false.  Religion’s history is one of violence, greed and lies.  Any local library can confirm this.  Better get there before they start burning the books, though (that was the “Christians” too).

Obama’s proposition is a dangerous one and it uses the guise of compassion as if it is an obvious practice of religion.  It is not.  But it appears Obama has been making new “connections” within the “religious community” and they’re not good ones.

(excerpt)
“Another influential African-American prosperity gospel pastor, Kirbyjon Caldwell, attended the June 10 meeting with Obama. “It is unscriptural not to own land,” the preacher has declared. Caldwell, a former bond dealer who founded the country’s largest Methodist congregation, the Houston-based Windsor Village, has been among George W. Bush’s most vocal and visible black backers. He introduced Bush at the 2000 Republican National Convention, delivered the benedictions at his 2001 and 2005 inaugural ceremonies and presided over the wedding ceremony of Jenna Bush. Bush has highlighted Caldwell’s good works as examples of the triumph of his federal faith-based initiative.

But almost as soon as Obama declared his campaign for the presidency, Caldwell broke from the GOP, delivering a roaring endorsement for the Democrat from Illinois, hailing him for his “character, confidence and courage.” “For the last twelve months, I’ve been talking to people who are part of the [Obama] campaign very, very regularly,” Caldwell said recently.”

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15647

This article by Max Blumenthal highlights some of the issues.  If one follows the hyperlinks a very disturbing picture arises.

I beg to disagree! Obama’s talk on this issue is intended to be a pandering specifically to two religious groups: The Jews and the Evangelists! It will continue to particularly discriminate against one group:The Muslims, who have seen their charities either closed or placed under constant surveillance to the point that they were rendered unable to function! I do have inside knowledge and firsthand experience on this issue. Therefore, this so-called Faith-Based Initiative is a recipe for empowering certain religions and an invitation for religion to further encroach into politics. It should be eliminated, not redefined or renamed. I believe that Obama does not have good intentions on this issue!