The Supreme Court just ruled on Monday, June 25, that the atheists and agnostics had “no standing” to bring a complaint against the government for creating a funding protocol for faith-based charities. I’ve been listening to them all morning as they complain that evil religious people will be taking over the world. They say we will use “charity” to preach our faith and that we will break down the wall between church and state. And, they say, if this happens who knows what will happen to our beloved democracy? Ah come on! The United States has a reputation for being a very religious country, yet our borders are continually open to people of all religions. We don’t forbid people of different faiths from becoming citizens. Nor do Christians prevent people of different faiths from enjoying the American way of life.
American atheists and agnostics like equating organized religion (especially Christianity) with evil, forgetting that Stalin and Mao Tse Tung performed their share of murderous atrocities, and that Hitler did not belong to any organized religion but was a lover of the occult and the just-plain-weird. Every time I hear some atheist or agnostic complaining about how “Christian faith-based charities” threaten to, I think of the YMCA, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, Save the Children and the Christian Children's Fund. These are just a few of the faith-based charities in the United States. I have yet to see these groups deny aid to anyone because of a difference in faith.
In fact, of all the food pantries and shelters in my little town, most are faith-based. The Salvation Army, for instance, has many food pantries and kitchens throughout the country. As do churches small and large. The only non-faith-based homeless shelter in my town couldn’t feed the amount of people who — at the end of the month — find themselves hungry and foodless. So why shouldn’t the faith-based pantries be helped out a bit by government funding?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
I am ambivalent about Dubya's faith-based initiative, and I'm also ambivalent about this decision.
One the one hand, I believe that local religious charities are much better able to deliver goods and services to needy people than a cold, soulless government bureaucracy. Instead of indifferent government employees simply putting in their time until retirement, you have motivated volunteers who truly believe in and love their work. Also, they are closer to the people they serve than someone in a state capital office building, or Washington DC.
On the other hand, I don't want the government involved in subsidizing religion, ANY religion. First of all, the churches could become dependent upon the government cash, which would give the government vast leverage over the churches, making the churches themselves in a way dependent on government welfare. Second, it could lead to the government subsidizing Islamist "charities" that are little more than terrorist front groups. Third, it could sow discontent among citizens who don't like the idea of their tax dollars going to promote ideologies that they disagree with.
It's a tough call. I guess we'll have to see how this thing pans out over the next few years, and then we'll have a better idea of whether it's a mistake or not.
2 - troll
unlike the author some readers will remember examples of holier than thou attitudes and intense stigmatization that poor folk had to stomach and the hoops they had to negotiate back in the day before cold inefficient government took over social services (with its whole other set of illth and hoops)
imo constitutionality questions aside it's a mistake to re-empower churches with their long histories of abuse
of couse things change and the future might not resemble the past
3 - Jeff Wismer
Wow, you're timing is excellent...
You're a wonderful example to Xians everywhere, b/c truly the Xian way to continue to attack people who just witnessed American Theocracy and their rights trampled upon by 5 Catholic theocratic judges in the supreme court.
Good Job, keep up the excellent work.
4 - Jeff Wismer
By the way, when you use Salvation Army as an example...who is really being ignorant??? Salvation Army has a long history of denying people employment who were not of the right faith:
NEW YORK -- The New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit in federal court charging The Salvation Army with religious discrimination against employees in its government-funded social services in New York City and on Long Island.
"This case is not about the right of the Salvation Army to practice or promote its religion. They have every right to do so, but not with government money," said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU. "The Salvation Army cannot use taxpayer money to practice religious discrimination against its social services employees."
US DOJ
Lown v. Salvation Army: a group of current and former Salvation Army employees sued the Salvation Army and New York City and State officials, claiming that because the Salvation Army contracts with the City to provide a variety of services, including adoption, foster care, hospice care, and many other social services, the Salvation Army could no longer use religious criteria in its hiring and staffing decisions. Section 702 of Title VII protects the independence and autonomy of religious organizations by exempting them from the prohibition against discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. The plaintiffs, however, argued that it would violate the Establishment Clause for the Salvation Army to invoke this provision when contracting with the government. The Civil Rights Division filed a brief arguing that so long as the services being provided under the contract were secular in nature, the Salvation Army did not lose its right to define and preserve its character and identity as a religious organization through its personnel practices. The court agreed on September 30, 2005, and ruled in favor of the Salvation Army and the other defendants.
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I don't have a dog in this race, so I can comment as one who is no longer involved in the American rat-race, but as someone who once was.
I remember being turned down three times for welfare when I was homeless - by the same bitch of a bureaucrat. I remember how pissed I was that she had a relatively secure roof over her head and a job - and I had neither. And jobs were not that easy to come by when I was living in the street.
I shouldn't be so nasty about it all. The government of Minnesota is not allowed deficit spending and the economic downturn of the early '80's (that vaunted Reagan "recovery" when ketchup was touted as a vegetable in school lunches), the state was near broke.
I also have memories similar to the ones that troll recalls above. I remember how utterly humiliated I was by what was known as the Jewish Family Service in St. Paul. So religious organizations are not much better.
In essence, there are no good answers, and litigating over stupid issues like whether a religious organization should get state money or not only enriches lawyers. The administrators of these religious organizations know well the dangers they face dancing with the devil of state funding. If they are stupid enough to take to the dance floor, let them slip on it.
6 - Lee Richards
"...so many abortions that have decimated our minority populations":
Decimated? What are you talking about?
"kind and organized God":
Then why is there so much need in the first place? (This isn't meant as a smart-aleck question; I honestly wonder if you have noticed how often Christians have to defend or excuse the actions or inactions of their God.)
"atheists and agnostics who are so furious...":
You seem to be fairly furious yourself. WWJD with atheists' and agnostics' questions? I don't recall any part of his message that was about using political power to force anyone to observe the Beatitudes.
If a Wiccan abortion clinic (were there such a thing) applied for faith-based government funds, would you support their right to receive them?
What you choose to do with your contributions is one thing;what government does with OUR taxes is something else.
7 - Leslie Bohn
atheists aren't in the habit of giving a tenth of their income (and more) to the poor.
Any proof here?
I wonder if the poster believes atheists to be uncharitable based on a simple lack of information. Not everyone, after all, is so quick to take credit for their charitable giving by, say, mentioning it in a blog post, followed by an unsubtle boast (she called herself "noble!") that's pretty embarrassing.
But then so is smearing a whole group of people with no evidence.
8 - Dr Dreadful
"abortions that have decimated our minority populations..."
Yeah, terrible, isn't it? Hardly see a black face or hear a Latino voice at all these days. [/sarcasm]
9 - Graham McKnight
I understand the author's concerns but she makes a few generalisations/ false claims.
The most striking of which is the belief that every Christian gives a percentage of their wages to charity and that atheists tend not to. I think the author would have have more in agreement with her had she not made this claim for the simple reason that some Christians do give to charity whilst others do not, and some atheists do give to charity whilst others do not.
Besides, as an Atheist myself I dislike the idea of charity giving; I would much rather prefer to stimulate the economy of the respective destitute person/ persons so that it may better provide for them and their families. The USA gives much to charitable organisations, but even with the best of intentions and efforts these organisations cannot repay the debt owed by the IMF and the WTO to betrayed nations and peoples.
Charitable people have the best of intentions but their energies are misplaced; I equate charity to throwing your loose change into a black hole. I'd rather invest money in finding ways and means to stabalise that black hole because clearly the WTO ain't gonna manage it with it's fat ass budget beyond the wildest hopes and dreams of any charity that I know of.
10 - bliffle
Wrong again, RJ. Personal sacrifice, charity and good works are not exclusive to the religious. I won't recite examples, because nothing can penetrate your ironclad bigotry.
11 - MCH
Re comment #1;
"One the one hand..."
But what about two the two hand...?
12 - carole mcdonnell
Honestly, guys!
After Katrina, would you rather be helped in a disaster by the Salvation Army or by FEMA? And if FEMA can't do it, would you rather a corporate entity such as Wal-mart? Both Wal-mart and the salvation army did way better at helping to feed, cloth, and shelter the Katrina homeless.
I tend to think that the usefulness of the faith-based entities would be hurt by having governmental entities throwing red-tape at them.
But certainly, in the last disasters...the corporate and faith-based communities were way more helpful, prompt, and organized than the government was.
As for whether I think atheists are uncharitable or not, that's not what I said. I mentioned the tithe...which is what the average religious person donates to his church or to charities. Last thing I heard there wasn't an atheist tithe. I have no doubt atheists are generous, but since there is no record of what atheists or even folks who belong to "ethical societies" give to the poor, then we have no knowledge of the generosity of atheists, agnostics, et al.
If you're looking for proof of the generosity of American Christians, check out the UN stats. -Carole
13 - Lee Richards
Many of us, I'm sure, give to any number of organized charities based on
1) our financial ability to do so, and
2) approval of the work the organization does and the record of good it accomplishes.
No doubt religious faith motivates some individuals. For others, it may be a sense of shared humanity and a derire to alleviate any suffering that they can.
That's all to the good, usually. But for George Bush's spiritual beliefs (or any religious group's theology) to be pivotal to U.S. governmental policy and dominant in any budget decisions is treading on very dangerous ground for both state and church.
And, of course, church property (and vast wealth, in some cases) is tax-exempt and may or may not be used to promote the general welfare.
14 - Intergalactic Hussy
Churches historically have been known to rake in way more cash than they need each week.
Atheists not charitable? Other than knowing from personal experience to be blatantly false, even more atheists would get involved if folktale stories weren't constantly pushed on us as we try to do the work of the people (not god).
15 - Constance
Good article. Great debate.
16 - Jeff Wismer
"I have no doubt atheists are generous, but since there is no record of what atheists or even folks who belong to "ethical societies" give to the poor, then we have no knowledge of the generosity of atheists, agnostics, et al. "
You certainly did you homework on this one...(it took me less than five minutes to google this)
Secular Charities and Aid groups:
Note: Guidestar, Charity Navigator and Charity Watch (American Institute of Philanthropy) describe and rate many different charitable organizations. Use these sites to research any group or charity before you donate.
Secular Charities and Aid organizations are listed below. Please visit each group's website to review their "About Us" pages. Excerpts appear after the website link, but are not comprehensive.
American Red Cross
The American Red Cross, a humanitarian organization led by volunteers, guided by its Congressional Charter and the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross Movement, will provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. The USA's premier emergency response organization, over 91% of Red Cross spending is on charitable services.
United Nations Children's Fund
UNICEF mobilizes political will and material resources to help countries, particularly developing countries, ensure a "first call for children" and to build their capacity to form appropriate policies and deliver services for children and their families. UNICEF provides emergency and disaster relief.
Doctors without Borders
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international independent medical humanitarian organization that delivers emergency aid to people affected by armed conflict, epidemics, natural and man-made disasters, and exclusion from health care in nearly 70 countries.
Oxfam International
Oxfam International is a confederation of 12 organizations working together with over 3,000 partners in more than 100 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering and injustice. The Oxfams operate in over 100 countries worldwide working with local partners to alleviate poverty and injustice.
Council for Secular Humanism
Provides secular support services to non-religious people throughout North America. Look to it for help with plans for weddings, funerals, conferences, speaking events, etc.
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy is a leading international, nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the diversity of life on Earth. An environmental group that protects natural habitats and the wildlife within them. Focuses on "science-based" initiatives.
Population Connection
Population Connection is the national grassroots population organization that educates young people and advocates progressive action to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained by Earth's resources. Works against faith-based policies that are supported by the Religious Right.
Earth's Atheist Resistance To Holy Wars And Religious Devastation - A growing atheist charity, EARTHWARD is a nonprofit, nonpolitical, nonmembership public-benefit charity organization that provides humanitarian relief aid to civilian victims of religiously motivated violence.
17 - Jeff Wismer
"After Katrina, would you rather be helped in a disaster by the Salvation Army or by FEMA? And if FEMA can't do it, would you rather a corporate entity such as Wal-mart? Both Wal-mart and the salvation army did way better at helping to feed, cloth, and shelter the Katrina homeless."
I thought god was supposed to be there? Where was god? Was god on vacation during Katrina? Or do you agree with your Xians brothers/sisters who say it was a punishment from god on new orleans?
18 - Jeff Wismer
"I tend to think that the usefulness of the faith-based entities would be hurt by having governmental entities throwing red-tape at them."
Charity Governance
You're right who needs red-tape when you can sell two coast guard ships given by the government's Faith Based Office and use that money to evangelize and brainwash children !!!
19 - Graham McKnight
Carole,
The tithe does not serve as a record for the amount of money religious people give to charities, it would be absurd to believe that this was so.
Again, you mention in your response that: 'I mentioned the tithe...which is what the average religious person donates to his church or to charities.' I know of many religious people, my mother included. None of them donate a tenth of their wage to the Church, taking the sizeable number of religious people that I know of, the proportion that give a tenth of their income to the church do not constitute the majority, they simply cannot afford to as the government removes a large percentage of wages via taxes etc etc.
Besides, what were you hoping to prove with this point anyway? Does donating a larger percentage of your wages to charity make you a better servant of your nonsensical God than your friend or relative who donates less?
How about increasing taxes with the intent of investing more in our children's education so that the next generation may better understand global economics? Charity serves as evidence of a faltering economy anyway, does it not?
20 - Jeff Wismer
"But certainly, in the last disasters...the corporate and faith-based communities were way more helpful, prompt, and organized than the government was."
I can really tell by that statement how well thought out and scientific your article is...or in other words, let's just put down whatever I want on paper, and pray that it's good (that works right?)
Hurricane Katrina
I wonder if you were actually there after Hurricane Katrina hit...if you were, you must have been in church the whole time, or praying to god with your eyes shut, the Corporation for National and Community Service was the first responders and the best organized group, even more so then the red cross, who couldn't even shelter me when I aked them to when I asked to volunteer.
Tsunami
21 - Jeff Wismer
Is it too much to ask for some accountability to the writer to actually do some homework and research before writing a bunch of nonsense.
In the words of Elaine Wright Colvin:
"Facts aren't too high on our priority list, they just get in the way of god"
22 - bliffle
Bill Gates, whose philanthropy is well-known, is irreligious. Warren Buffet, who threw his excess wealth into gates' philanthropy pot, is openly agnostic.
And as far as I know, none of their foundations requires an oath of belief in superstition from the recipients of their charity. None of them requires withholding of medicine to punish people for their sins and not obeying voices in the benefactors heads.
23 - carole mcdonnell
Wow, Jim!
You are proving my case against immature fury. You got email addresses from my website, sent emails to all my friends and colleagues (many of whom are atheists and who think you shame their cause) and then you spend the day inciting all your friends to email me and to post cruel emails to my website and to my myspace page. You even emailed writers' groups to incite them to jeer and mock at me. I've never seen such fury and such immaturity combined in one. The weird thing is that it seems that you and your atheist friends who are harrassing me and inciting others to harass me are all so rude...and all so immature about how to deal with people. Talk about a herd mind! You've only proved that you guys do indeed have an immature and ignorant fury.
24 - Dr Dreadful
Whoever this Jim fellow is, he doesn't seem to have come from BC. Not this thread, anyway.
25 - A Concerned Citizen
Honestly, both sides fume with so much hatred that it's easy to wonder how we're charitable at all.