tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post5044631814417020866..comments2024-01-11T07:17:00.531-05:00Comments on Dem Bones: God and the StimulusDrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-84768518205763862762009-02-22T16:06:00.000-05:002009-02-22T16:06:00.000-05:00Darren-you are getting soft!Darren-you are getting soft!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-72202728108604560192009-02-20T12:35:00.000-05:002009-02-20T12:35:00.000-05:00Exactly. If you want your own people, you can hav...Exactly. If you want your own people, you can have them, but you just can't take government money. Not necessarily a bad choice, but one that could drastically lower the number of people you can reach/help. So, I am not necessarily sure it is out of laziness, but that the Christian ethic is caught in a tough tension of principles. Help as many people as you can versus hire only those people to help that your religion/denomination supports. As a Matthew 25 progressive, this is a no-brainer to me, but I can understand the dispute and hesitation.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-77525614846397897562009-02-20T12:26:00.000-05:002009-02-20T12:26:00.000-05:00yes, that [hiring practices] is typically the prim...yes, that [hiring practices] is typically the primary example of the first amendment conflict that is created when a religious organization accepts money. many outspoken groups are currently having their tax exempt status threatened over just that topic. i say give up the status and do the work you feel called to do with the people you feel called to hire to get it done. prove you do not worship money by being willing to find a way to make do with less. <BR/><BR/>i worry that too many Christians are getting lazy with opening up their wallets because they can now say "well, my taxes go to a lot of welfare and charity programs". this is all backwards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-71519407615408463812009-02-20T12:15:00.000-05:002009-02-20T12:15:00.000-05:00That sounds intuitively correct to me, especially ...That sounds intuitively correct to me, especially given the relative newness of faith-based initiatives in the last decade - intuitively, like your suspicion, because I don't have any research to prove one way or another. <BR/><BR/>But the current faith-based initiative sticking point is over hiring practices - as Darren pointed out in the first comment here. Some groups want to hire only people their religions support, while the government says you can't discriminate in hiring practices if you take federal money. That this debate exists at all gives credence to your argument.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-48882812147164853792009-02-20T12:06:00.000-05:002009-02-20T12:06:00.000-05:00religiously neutral is what i meant by 'areligious...religiously neutral is what i meant by 'areligious', so we agree there. <BR/><BR/>my suspicion on the other topic is that for a long time it did not occur to church organizations that by accepting money from the gov. they were inviting gov. control. it was only quite recently that the gov. began to put limits on how such money could be used, and it is the shock of that change in -practice- that i believe has many shouting about anti-religious action. they do not yet understand that by taking the money they granted gov. control over how church funds would be spent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-8376204653047999202009-02-20T11:59:00.000-05:002009-02-20T11:59:00.000-05:00jhrimm, very thoughtful post. Thanks! To your la...jhrimm, very thoughtful post. Thanks! To your last question, I think it I think that religious organizations take money in order to raise the ceiling on the number of people they can give food too, give clothes too, etc. You know the whole Matthew 25 ethic. But, yeah, I have always said that, if I was a church pastor as both of my parents, I would not want the taint of government intrusion - and a government that messes with unjustified wars and torture taboot - into my sacred space.<BR/><BR/>To your first question: very interesting thought. I would say that laws stand on precedent, both adjudicated judicially (forgive the semantic repetition there) and on legislative templates. The part of the stimulus in question has been written for 40 years, going through conservative and liberal leaning congresses, conservative and liberal leaning presidents. This part, I would think, has suffered the scrutiny of all sides and still stands. In this light, I would guess, it is solidly religiously neutral.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-48100907437593885562009-02-20T08:46:00.000-05:002009-02-20T08:46:00.000-05:00Or one could say that the stimulus package is as a...Or one could say that the stimulus package is as anti-religious as the first amendment requires it to be in order to be a constitutional piece of legislation (insofaras people of a particular mindset within the church view anything which is areligious as being anti-religious).<BR/><BR/>I do not understand why so many of our faith fail to understand that having the separation of church and state cut -both- ways is in our best interest. Every time religious groups accept money from the government (or tax credits via tax exemption status) they give the government an opportunity to control their actions. Why would you not only invite that, but demand it as your right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-12459663659632692232009-02-20T00:23:00.000-05:002009-02-20T00:23:00.000-05:00It is not at all, imo. I have said for years that ...It is not at all, imo. I have said for years that I have ZERO problem with sending federal monies to religious groups so long as they do not proselytize and do not discriminate in hiring.<BR/><BR/>Doing God's work for the work itself is, imo, more of a blessing that doing it to pocket converts. <BR/><BR/>And, btw, if a non-believer went to work for such a group and started spreading his views while delivering a meal, etc, I would have no problem with firing his ass either.<BR/><BR/>When people are hungry, you feed them. When people are homeless, you shelter them. When people are sick, you treat them. You don't judge them or preach at them. That is what Jesus is to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com