I dunno, Bob. I'm still a little dubious. This was quite a shock to the system when I first saw your post on it this morning. Let's keep a close eye on this. I had hoped Bush's faith-based thingy was going to evaporate once he left office. Churches are already eligible for tax-exempt status, so they are benefitting doubly from this program, which discriminates against strictly secular programs.

Obama's comments are a little more comforting, but I'm still concerned.

I posted this idea elsewhere - but there is a consequence to bringing an African American into the Presidency. While some see this as "tacking to the right/center" I see this as a core African-American perspective, and am grateful for it.

http://www.windonwater.net/index.php/topic,143.0.html

Bush's program was a failure and a huge lie. It turns out that he was not really doing anything more than the Clinton Administration had done already. It was all just a ruse to get the fundies out to vote.

I have no patience for it. It just perpetuates two myths. One, that government is bad and is the problem and two, that if a religious organization provides the service it follows that it will only do good and decent work with the money we give it. In reality, it's nothing more than an opportunity to funnel tax dollars to various religious programs with no guarantee whatsoever of producing results.

We already have various government agencies charged with assisting the citizens of this country. If they are broke and need fixing or are in need of some belt-tightening, then let's get to work. I will not, however, have my tax dollars go to organizations that are only too happy to discriminate based on whatever mythology they subscribe to, nor have my government decide which of these mythologies are valid and, therefore, deserving of tax dollars.

Government (which is us, by the way...) and Faith working together in the same neighb is an awesome idea, but let's use good government to make us prosperous so that we can then in turn personally support whatever religious outreach we choose.

Well said, Nano!

I couldn't agree more.

Agreed: Very well-said.

Wait, wouldn't your first "myth" be perpetuated by giving federal funding to -any- non-government program or non-profit? That's absurd. Government can do some things very efficiently, and some things not very efficiently. Even in countries where socialism isn't such a dirty word, huge amounts of federal funding go toward "private" non-profits. It makes sense on a lot of practical levels- small groups are much more likely to be personally connected to the communities they serve, they can have a more narrow focus than a big-tent program, etc- and it's totally ridiculous to say that it's somehow wrong to fund them because ideologically, you don't want to concede the point to conservatives that there are certain situations in which government programs are less efficient than non-government programs.

--d

I see what you're saying dansolomon, but for an organization affiliated with a particular faith to petition for a grant from the government is just fine with me. Let them compete for monies along with other non-faith based orgs. Where I have a problem is the establishment of an agency that is for awarding grants to faith-based orgs specifically. Again, who decides which of these faiths are actually faiths? Who gets to decide that the tenets of a particular faith are ok? In addition, by stipulating that they cannot use the money to proselytize, aren't we essentially curtailing their freedom of speech/religion in exchange for government money?.

Sure, govn't does some things awesome and some things not so awesome, but is it the answer to throw up our hands and say, "Ya know what? I bet a local church/temple/mosque/druid grove/coven could do this soooo much better. Let's just give them the cash and let them have at it." I don't know why it is that when a government program is not working as it should, the answer is always to try to kill it or worse, make some noise about privatizing it. No one ever seems to want to fix it.

At the local level, there are often community religious leaders that know what problems the community faces and I'll even grant that they often know how best to deal with them. Why not invite them to the table? We do not have to create a special office to fund them. We can invite them brainstorm the problem with us and then proceed.

Inviting them to the table is inefficient- these leaders are already doing the work. They're not just sitting around grousing about how things need to change. They don't need a spot at someone else's table, they need money so they can ensure that the work gets done. Taking them out of the program that probably addresses the needs of their community efficiently so they can talk about ways that other people can help is counter-productive, when you can just have the people who want to help give them the money to expand their operation. It's like when Warren Buffett gave $30bn to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation instead of starting his own- once there's already a program in place, it's much better to work within their framework (assuming they're effective) than to try to supplant (or even supplement) them.

As far as who gets the money, I reckon it'll go to whoever's organized and doing the work. If there's a Zoroastrian Neighborhood Breakfast Club of Toledo, then they certainly should qualify. But I think that, when you look at it practically, you're going to find that the very vast majority of charitable faith-based work is done by Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the US. I certainly support the random follower of Quetzalcoatl receiving federal funds for his midnight basketball program, but assuming the money goes mostly to existing groups with a track record, you're likely to find that the sun-worshipers and druids to be a very sharp minority. Which is okay, because the money isn't to be used for anything except the specific community-based work being done, and it doesn't really matter if homeless kids are being fed by Christians or people who worship Zuul.

As far as infringing on these groups' first-amendment rights, that's not really how grants work. If I receive a grant from an organization with the mandate that my $50,000 is to spread the message of voter registration in Latino communities, and I spend it on cocaine and prostitutes, it's not curtailing my first amendment rights to pull my funding because I chose instead to spread the message that coke and whores are awesome.

As far as competing with non faith-based groups, it's a really sticky issue. My mother-in-law runs a secular non-profit in Dallas that saw its funding slashed in the face of the Bush faith-based initiative push. Her take on it is that we can make the two work side-by-side if we judge them on the basis of the work they're doing, rather than the politics of favoring faith-based groups for their own sake. There are a lot of secular non-profits that are more wasteful and less effective than faith-based groups, though, and automatically disqualifying those people from funding is foolish and encourages problems. This is a good, important program, if it's managed responsibly.

--d

Nano - I think you need to do a more-thorough reading of what Obama is saying about this. He's not advocating setting up an agency/committee/whatever to oversee grants specifically to faith-based organizations.

He's saying that there will be a group that oversees grants to BOTH faith-based and neighborhood organizations. The faith-based orgs will be held to strict compliance to the rules that prohibit any prozelytizing.

I think this is okay. The local organizations, be they faith-based or secular, are much more aware of the needs of their local communities. Govt agencies tend to get caught up in the bureaucratic rules and regulations, become inefficient and get bogged down by having to fill out endless reams of govt forms that do nothing more than justify unneeded levels of more bureaucrats.

Local groups almost always operate on a "lean and mean" basis. They are usually staffed by lots of unpaid volunteers, with a small core of modestly compensated professionals. Govt agencies are staffed (almost) entirely by civil servants, who are very expensive, comparatively speaking, what with their generous fringe benefits and retirement programs. I know about those generous benefits, etc. as I am a former govt worker.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: