What bugs me about this whole 'faith-based' charities thing ...

[Philostopher]

is that I can't help but envision loyalty oaths of some kind being required, once the God-botherers who've been calling for this stuff finally get their way completely.

You know, things like 'I believe in Jesus Christ and accept him as my personal savior,' of course, and maybe even a requirement that the person seeking help will have to officially join the church that's distributing the money ... but not only that ...

That people will have to swear (perhaps in a legal contract, as part of their application for aid) that they won't drink, won't smoke, if they're gay (or even hetero and unmarried) that they'll remain celibate, and that getting help from these organizations will be contingent on their dancing to the tune of whichever denomination has been given the money.

The really disturbing part of this is, when I grew up in a church, I was taught that the concept of freewill was a big part of the whole 'heaven Monopoly' game we played. You know, that it was a virtue to make the right choices, and we earned 'points' for doing that, sort of. Not literally, but that our choices -- making the right ones -- raised our odds of going to heaven.

Requiring people to join your church in order to have access to resources like food to eat or medical care is exactly counter to the whole freewill concept. In fact, it could almost be called a form of religious blackmail, or at least extortion.

It's annoying enough for somebody who doesn't believe in organized religion to be assailed with the social pressure to conform and go to church, even if they actually do believe in God and Jesus and the whole story in the bible as literal truth, but choose for whatever reason not to affiliate themselves with a church.

There are plenty of people out there, I'm sure, who 'consider themselves Christian' who don't attend any one church or belong to any one denomination. Not that I think they'd have any problem signing a loyalty oath to get food or shelter, but even they'd have been bribed.

I really find it disturbing that this is what these people want -- they want the U.S. Government to enable them to bribe or coerce people into joining their churches. That's what it comes down to, in my mind. If Christianity isn't attractive enough to people to entice them to come in and try it for themselves, let's force them to come to the church and officially join just to keep food in the refrigerator, feed their kids, or heat their homes.

Am I missing something, here? Do I misunderstand the basic concept of the whole 'faith-based' thing? Is there likely to be any control on what hoops these churches can make people jump through to qualify for the money? Maybe there will be, I don't know. That's why I'm posting this -- I'm wondering if I've misconceived this whole thing.

I'd love to think I was wrong, I really would, but right now it just seems like this whole concept is designed to turn churches into the Jesus Mafia, and that this stuff is going to enable them to threaten people's access to needed resources if they don't agree to hop on their bandwagon.

Thoughts?

[undergroundpanther]

1. coercion

Requiring people to join your church in order to have access to resources like food to eat or medical care is exactly counter to the whole freewill concept. In fact, it could almost be called a form of religious blackmail, or at least extortion.

That is IT

Religion is all about extortion,Religion uses your fears,your guilts, fear of death, fear of insignificance,fear of being alone in a harsh world you cannot predict and can only partly at best control kinda.

If you think and feel and see the world in a certain way and make sure your choices reflect OUR beliefs you should have,then you are worthy of food or medical care.

Do you realize how ARROGANT this is,how elitist and cruel?

People are not born religious they learn it from'well meaning' parents who drag them to church.Parents want to make their kids obey them,can compete in a culture that prizes loyalty,ignorance and obedience.. and they want their child/property to be like they want..The Parents are afraid of losing control of the uncontrollable, they don't want to be alone when they die and THEY don't want to ever think all the suffering in the world is without a purpose or meaning,they don't want to think there is no happy ending to this nightmare some people have of this called existence.They don't want to fail.

If a creator god exists at all,I think it is a fucked up monster.Remember everything he creates dies, everything beautiful rots,everything good is corrupted.

I myself am more of an agnostic gnostic.
If there is a creator it is a horror show,and it needs to be stopped shut down or something. If it could be made tangible enough to kill.If there is a good being I can say for certain it is not from here because everything from here sucks pretty much, and this"divine thing" is only an intangible partly there,a dim spark reflected in the perishable life and beauty.. so it has no power here and it can't get more influence here and so seeking this god outside of your own conduct and heart is pointless fantasy games that keep people from cultivating genuine integrity when they put their inner locus of control into a book or put it into a corrupt pastors hands(or ANY other "chain of command" so he'll tell them what right and wrong is . Giving up your freedom to say no or yes and disconnecting your inner locus of control from reality is one of the most evil things a person can do.

So I'm not even sure any being'out there' is really out there it might just be in here(pointing to head),

I think existence sucks (for most people if you are poor,abused, underclass,sick or hurting and struggling) and that too many people in order to cope with a harsh reality that is competitive and callous become greedy emotionally retarded, self centered and abusive and destroy what is beautiful and good in this world because they want to own it or control it rather than let it be.

And this comes back full circle to EXTORTION.
Controlling other people makes some people feel secure in a uncertain world,like a god among men.
And isn't THAT the problem?
There are to be no kings or gods in human suits walking among us?
Once we accept a king or god person as more worthy of the good things of life than we are or our neighbors are we become subjected and serve him as if he is entitled to this power.

[fshrink]

2. Hear hear!

The "saint" "mother" Theresa did just that in Calcutta. When you think about it, it comes even pretty close to the kind of deal the "devil" is supposed to cut: material things vs. your "soul". But I'm positive some jesuit can re-frame this and turn it over on its head...

[Modem Butterfly]

3. I have read the Mother Theresa often turned down supplies...

...such as bandages and anti-biotics on the reasoning that she was there to comfort the dying, not heal the sick, and when I worked for a company that had a majority of Indian-born employees (mostly tech guys) many of them told stories of exactly the sort of religious extortion you mention in your post. I think I might try to dig up some info on this topic.

[Cleita]

4. I think when we rely on charities, religious or otherwise, to fix

society's ills then we are applying a bandaid instead of treating the whole illness. Society has an obligation to care for the weakest among them, the children, the elderly and the handicapped unable to look after themselves. Government does the best job of this just as it does the best job of doing public works.

Imagine if we had to rely on a hodge podge of special interests to build roads and bridges, or run the fire department and police departments. So we need a system of safety nets and collection of taxes to fund these safety nets. Putting this in the hands of a central authority to collect and then distribute the funds where needed is the best way to do this.

I mean sometimes Churches do a fine job of helping some of the population but they are limited and as you say people could be blackmailed into various practices and loyalty oaths in order to get the help they need.

Also, I was so upset about the tax-free status of religious institutions that I am reading up on this and it turns out that you don't even have to have a church to be a religion and claim yourself a non-profit corporation.

[Philostopher]

5. You're absolutely right -- it's necessary to the Republican platform,

however, to 'blame the victim' for his problems. It's because it's hard work to actually provide a system that's fair to everybody, and gives everybody an equal chance at everything.

I'm afraid we're going to have to rely on that hodgepodge you mention, unfortunately, since the fundievangelicals and the hard-right pseudo-capitalists appear to be getting their way and gutting most of the New Deal social programs.

Of course having a central collection and distribution point makes the most sense -- even in capitalist theory, it works better because the central authority can bargain for cheaper prices for the service -- and if you understand sociology, and the reasons the things that happen do happen, it makes yet more sense.

Republicans (and, let's be honest, plenty of Democrats) refuse to understand this and, instead, blame things like genetics, culture and lack of religion for society's problems like violence, hunger and mental illness. The lack of resources and economic, social and educational stratification apparently have nothing to do with it in Republicanworld.

I'm a reality-based being. These economic/social Darwinists are pathetic -- they really just want an excuse to be greedy. I don't think the motivation is any different on the part of many of the 'religious' organizations that want this 'faith-based' charitable revolution in place. I think they, too want to get their hands in the till, and decide who deserves to be helped and who they can turn away and still call themselves virtuous.

It pisses me off -- it's cheaper, in the long run, to invest in feeding everybody and making sure everybody gets a bare minimum of housing and education than it is to warehouse people in prison for much of their adult lives because they committed crimes they might not have committed if they'd felt they had an opportunity to get things honestly. It's easier to blame them for their problems, imprison them until it becomes too expensive, then 'euthanize' them when they commit a crime that goes beyond the pale.

[PassingFair]

6. Something tells me that when the shoe drops...

we won't be considered amoung the ranks of the "deserving poor".

:puke: