Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance

I am not saying that organizations working from faith are not capable of doing really good work. I loathe the 700 club but I think even some of their programs have done some good. I also realize that there are members of faith based organizations who are interested in providing a service and proselytization is not their main goal.This is not the issue.The issue is whether the govt should contract its work out to faith based organizations to provide services. The answer is a resounding no.If the system a faith based organization uses is effective, then it should be observed and adopted by whatever govt agency will be providing the service. If a person of faith wants to help people by providing such a service, they can either join a religious charity so that their faith can be preached to those receiving service (thus indicating what is more important to that service giver), or they may work for the govt agency and simply provide the service.What has happened is that money is now being shopped off to fill religious coffers to provide the same service as before, only now people receiving the service can be pressured socially while receiving that service into becoming religious. In addition the service providers use the new links to then work into the beneficiary's family and deliver religious service to their children.This is not theoretical, it is already happening. It is documented.On top of this, these same organizations have asked and if I remember correctly have one the right to DISCRIMINATE based on RELIGIOUS grounds for hiring employees. Thus religion has become a test for civil work, and inherently ensures that people receiving services can be pressured into specific religious tenets. This is inconsistent with any concept of freedom of religion. The govt at this point in time DOES discriminate on the basis of religion.That is why that line was not supposed to be crossed in the first place. That was the warning and it has come true.Frankly I don't like contract work anyway, but if contracting work is going on then those that do it should adhere to the same policies for regular civil employment. They are on MY dime.And to put this in perspective of the thread topic: The people who suggest that they will only work for the govt to provide services to the public, if they can do so in a way that allows proselytization, shows that their true loyalty is NOT to this nation.In no way would we allow a govt service contractor to be able to pressure a recipient into trips to N Korea to find out how wonderful and wise Kim Jung Il is. We would readily question a person who says they cannot possibly hand out an unemployment check unless they are able to do so. Yet we find it reasonable when someone demands that they have to be able to invite people to the kingdom of Jesus, and find out how wonderful and wise he is?Its the same thing! Ideological proselytization and coercion. That it is specifically focused on the nation's weakest when they are at their most vulnerable makes it predation and extortion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Gotcha! (Good post, BTW )

I'm pretty sure that this was happening well before Bush started his "faith based" initiative.Catholic charities offers extensive social service programs. I'm pretty sure that both the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois had long been contracting out some of their services to these programs, and I think the federal government did likewise. For this to work, Catholic charities did have to build some kind of wall separating social services from the church's religious operations.It is my impression that the main purpose of Bush's program is to weaken the requirements of this separating wall. I find that troubling.

Yes, the Bush WH says the church-affilitated orgs can accept federal funds and hire and fire on the basis of religious belief (or lack). I think they have a least one fed court decision on their side, as wellOf course, Bush also says that God told him to invade Iraq, but I think that was just a case of brain-cell death from poly-substance abuse.

The first amendment, and therefore the constitution, says quite clearly that there shall be no laws regarding religion. That means not for any religion, not against any religion. It is interperted to mean that religious concepts shall not be the basis of any laws. It does not state and does not imply anything about favorites. You need to read the words in the constitution before you make claims about what it says.I am amazed that you have not been to called to task on this long before now. (If someone did in a later post I have not read, my appologies.)

I POTM'd it.

nice response Phat. and yes, a lot of tangents. let's hope they don't start too many off topic runs. The old {white hat \ black hat} fallacy eh? We'll just rosie over all the bad things done in the name of america in other countries ... It's always a good day when you learn a new word. "My country right or wrong" is jingoist to the point of being anti-patriotic: patriotism also includes saying when people in your government are wrong and making a mistake and doing the wrong thing, like the patriot act. Yes, and we should be able to expect our representatives to represent all of their {districts\areas\people} and to consider the minority positions to ensure that they are not adversely impacted more than necessary ... politics is the art of compromise to maximize benefit. This is where the two party system, as it currently exists, most fails america and americans. You really can't be a {part\half\kindof} theocracy. By definition government is either secular ("Worldly rather than spiritual. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body") or theocratic ("A government ruled by or subject to religious authority."). The founding fathers chose secular, based on their experience and knowledge of different theocratic and secular societies, colonies and governments.The laws should be based on reasons and purposes that apply to all people equally: speed limits serve a universal purpose, income tax serves a universal purpose, having religious freedom serves a universal purpose, invoking the 10 commandments does not have a universal purpose.This is the problem when you start to discuss legislating morality ... Who's morality is used? What is the basis? When you rule out abortions based of a morality based on faith, then how is that different from making people who do not belong to your faith subject to your religious authority?If if is a choice that is based on your beliefs, then it is a personal choice that must be left to each person to decide according to their beliefs. If there is a choice that is based on clear evidence then most people should come to the same conclusion. Perhaps this is the real purpose for the separation of church and state - which is really a separation of {you chosing to live by your faith} from {our (you and me and a bunch of others) running of government to deal equally and fairly with all people} - so that allegiance to one is not confused with allegiance to the other.It's also an argument for taking "under god" back out of the pledge and "in god we trust" off the money, to keep the division of intent clear, that faith is not government.

• freedom
• justice
• equality
• liberty
• education
• universal health
• pursuit of happiness
• voting system that picks good leaders not party hacks
• welfare of all
• easy citizenship
• international policy based on american ideals instead of corporate interests
• ...

(sure you want to get me started on this?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ever hear the term "higher power"? It refers to God. The problem with denying faith-based groups funds to deal with some social problems is that faith-based groups are often more effective, and sometimes almost the only effective method for dealing with certain problems.For example, very, very few people are delivered from chemical addictions without conscious contact with their higher power, or just getting saved, as some Christians would put it. Now AA is sufficiently non-sectarian to obtain government endorsement, but it is still faith-based. In fact, that's one of the primary ingredients, placing faith in a higher power.Personally, I think through the Lord not only can you be delivered from not just substance abuse but from being an addict altogether. I think the AAers would say always an addict, but you can be free from the behaviour. So maybe that's the watered-down version, but still works, and is good advice in many respects.The fact is faith-based charities cannot always be duplicated by secular charities. It's just the way it is.

This is just another unsupported just-so story, Rand.How did you reach your conclusions about the relative success of faith-based vs. other rehab programs? AA won't give you numbers--that's a fact.Do you have direct experience in this regard?What is the source of your assertions?Can you back up any of your claims in this post?Given the majority percentages U.S. Christians are fond of quoting, and the claims made for the efficacy of faith-based programs, why are there so many alcoholics and addicts left in the U.S.?

Right. But I know a couple of people that AA failed for that very reason - the requirement that they place faith in a higher power.Some people need to give responsibility for their lives over to someone/something else to overcome addiction.Other people need to take responsibility for their own lives to overcome addiction.

That's right. No laws and so the government is not forbidden from ackowledging God, participating in religious expressions, nor from grants to faith-base charities, as these are not laws pertaining to religion.

I am not a major fan of AA, but regardless, you are mistaken about it. Turning to a higher power for help, i.e. turning to God is taking responsibility for your life.

Here are the 12 steps, my emphasis added: The first step itself is admitting powerlessness. How can you take responsibility for your life if you have no power?Though you may think giving all of your responsibility/choice/will/ability/power over to someone else is taking control of your own life, many, many people think quite the opposite, which does seem to be the logical conclusion.And AA does not work for a lot of those people.

Actually, it barely works for anybody. AA works for about 6%* of alcoholics who join; that's the same as the number of alcoholics who beat their problems without joining any sort of program at all.* data haphazardly remembered from an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.

(Nice source for the stat, by the way.)I did a superquick abstract review of results from an "alcoholics anonymous" PubMed search.
One recent study stated that AA in combination with standard medical therapy gave an added benefit over medical therapy alone, but AA by itself gave no benefit over no treatment.Interestingly, another review of AA defined its psychological mode of success as substitute dependency, that is replacing dependency on alchohol with dependency on a cult-like atmosphere. (So much for divine intervention...)