The thing I've been noticing about Mr. Obama is that he is a very gifted politician who is very conscious of electability. His current pandering to evangelicals, expanding on Bush's programs, to me is similar to when he recently spoke to Jewish voters and implied in certain terms that he would be willing to keep the current administration's all-options-are-on-the-table approach to dealing with Iran. Honestly, I don't have hopes that we will see much change if he is elected.
Don't blame me I voted for Kodos!
falterer
· 1 year ago
Interesting. I appreciate your alarm, but read the article slightly differently.
We already know Obama "believes deeply in the separation of church and state." We've heard him express that message very eloquently, using the majority faith of his audience to frame it. If he stood up and spoke abruptly of secularism, he would risk heckling and dismissal. Instead, he found a way to deliver his message using religious terminology.
"Few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples and mosques."
This isn't a recommendation, but a statement of fact: the majority of Americans attend church. Obama sees church cliques as a potential resource that can be harnessed to assist their surrounding communities. I don't object to the concept of "faith-based initiatives" when what is really meant is leveraging the community effect of churches for some actual benefit.
I recognize that caution is due. "Faith-based initiative" promises have been abused to directly fund religious propaganda in prisons and elsewhere. I'd like to push Obama to elaborate on his plans and explain how we can eliminate such wasteful spending and make sure faith communities really do provide "social service programs for the poor."
I think Obama's basically saying: "OFBCI? It's a nice idea. But you're doing it wrong."
david
· 1 year ago
Up until 1996 the Federal Government took it upon itself to take care of the poor. They did this through a really crappy welfare system (AFDC) that handed out tons of money with impunity. Clinton set out to fix the system with a bunch of new laws, rules, initiatives and programs called PRWORA. PRWORA created TANF which replaced AFDC. The big difference between the two programs is that TANF isn't the blank check that AFDC was. There are limits. Recipients of TANF are expected to get jobs and stop having babies (under the old system, "welfare moms" would just pop out another kid as soon as the benefits were about to expire).
Also part of PRWORA was the shift from having the Federal Government take care of all these programs to having the states take on ownership. The idea being that as you move closer to the level of the people in need, the better you'll be able to help them. In this vein, smaller organizations were enlisted by states to help as well. And here's where Charitable Choice comes in to play.
Charitable Choice was also part of PRWORA. What it says is that religious organizations can bid for TANF (as well as CSBG's, SAMHSA's etc.) contracts just like any other organization. You see, states can hire out groups to help disseminate the government funds to the poor. Going on the whole separation of Church and State ideas, religious groups wouldn't normally be included. Charitable Choice made an exception of the Government's typical separation stance. BUT, with certain rules.
Under Charitable Choice, government money cannot be used to pay for religious stuff. The money has to go only to fulfill the public social service goals. Additionally, religious organizations can not discriminate based on religion where these social programs are concerned.
So the whole idea of Charitable Choice is anti-discriminatory. Any organization can bid for these social contracts and religious organizations aren't going to be singled out as long as they keep the social programs separate from religious ones.
But there was a problem. No one bit. The Churches didn't want any part of it because they were sure it would mess with their religious missions and of course there was some apprehension on the government's part because of the Establishment Clause.
Here is where G.W. comes in. He created something called The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The purpose was to get governments and religious organizations together to make Charitable Choice work.
So the conclusion is this. The Federal Government realized that it sucked at getting our nation's poor the aid it needed. It set out to transfer that responsibility to State Governments. To further help, it set up the provision that States could use local organizations to help in this endeavor. Of course, religious institutions are right there in the thick of helping out those in need so special provisions were made to include religious organizations if they kept that portion of their activities separate from their religion. Since there was some apprehension on both sides (state government and faith-based orgs) to partner up, a special department was set up to get things going between the State Governments and the local groups that would most likely be interested in helping the poor.
Obviously G.W. has been criticized for setting this up. What you may not know is that a good portion of the criticism is that he set this up in name only and that it hasn't really done all that it was supposed to do. Obama's expansion of this Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is more about making it work. And good for him.
I will say though that I do understand your concern. Of course, American Atheists doesn't need a special office. They are already more than welcome to bid on TANF's, Welfare-to-Work, and Community Services Block Grants. But do they? (I rather hope so. It would be a good way to show that FBO's don't have a monopoly on charity.)
Also interesting to note is that Clinton created Charitable Choice and both Gore and Bush endorsed it. Obama, Bush, and McCain are all for OFBCI. The only one that I know of that might not be for it is my boy Barr. But of course his concern would be less about whether religions should be involved and more about whether the government should be.
ryan
· 1 year ago
I hate to let somebody else speak for me, but in this case, PZ Myers echos my thoughts very well:
It's like Michael Moore said, that our choices are between "dumb and dumber" for the presidential election. The way I see it, if "dumb" isn't a clear winner, then Fox News will take it upon themselves to proclaim "dumber" the winner. I'm sick of living with "dumber", so I'm voting for "dumb". It will make my life better, and everyone elses lives better, and even if he isn't perfect on the issues, or says something that I personally disagree with, voting for him is for the greater good at this point. Vote for any other guy and your throwing your vote in the garbage, which will harm your own life, your child's life, and my child's life. I can understand having big principles and lines you don't want to cross, but I feel that this election is so critical and there is too much at stake for people to just throw away their votes and put our country in jeopardy of being led by a tyrant for the next eight years.
You know, when you can barely afford your health insurance and even with it you end up paying hundreds of dollars out of pocket a year, and your child faces entering school in a couple years where he'll be one of 40 kids in the class, and you had to give up your house because you couldn't afford it anymore, and your brother-in-law can't even enjoy the fireworks show because his PTSD from his extended stay in Iraq is so bad, and your family can't afford gas or groceries without using the charge card, and your friends can't get married because the country sees them as not equal to everyone else based on their sexual orientation, and the environment is being so desecrated that you have daily anxiety about what kind of world your child is going to grow up in, well then sometimes you just vote for the person who isn't going to make all these things worse. And sometimes you just get the best option in office, and worry about the nuances of their political platform later.
But, that's me, I just have constant dread and anxiety for my child and don't even want to live in this country if Mccain gets elected, so I don't really give a crap if Obama is pandering to the evangelicals right now. Let him, then maybe he'll get more votes, and then he'll get elected, and then my life will suck a little less.
Think of the greater good man.
ryan
· 1 year ago
I'm not saying I would vote McCain or that I wouldn't vote Obama, but this kind of thing needs to be spoken out about so I did what I felt was right and wrote him about my concerns.
In the short term, Obama is the best option, I agree, but supporting a candidate doesn't always mean agreeing with them. It can also mean attempting to convince them that a position they have taken is wrong, especially where the long-term health of the nation is concerned.
Jennifer
· 1 year ago
You did say that you would not vote Obama;
"This is something I absolutely, positively, cannot support."
"I would never vote for McCain, but if you’re going to continue laying the groundwork for a State in which secular free thinkers such as myself will not be welcome, then I cannot support your candidacy either."
I totally support trying to change a stance that you don't agree with. I totally support writing to him and imploring him to reconsider. I just don't support throwing your vote away if he doesn't change his mind, because that puts us all in jeopardy.
ryan
· 1 year ago
There are multiple ways I could "not support [his] candidacy" other than not voting for him. I could still vote for him but decide not to give him more money or promote his candidacy on my blog, for instance. This is more what I have in mind than not voting for him, but I felt it was better to leave that unspecified in the letter because what other leverage does a voter have? To say, "sure I'll vote for you but I won't feel as good about it, I won't pimp you to my friends and I won't give you anymore of my money" is more specific but perhaps not as useful as a vague threat. So, don't worry about whether or not I'll do the right thing come election day, but I will not and cannot remain silent while our constitutionally-mandated secular government is undermined by giving federal taxpayer funds to religious institutions and I won't just blindly support everything any candidate does if it's against my conscience.
Jennifer
· 1 year ago
Well, in that case, it's all good. You really seemed to be indicating that you weren't going to vote for him, and you didn't clarify that you really were going to in your post. I really hope that all the secularists that are upset by this are not so upset as to not vote for him.
david
· 1 year ago
My brother used to work at a Mall store. As part of his duties he had to make the weekly deposit to the bank. So in addition to the hourly rate he got for working, he also got thousands of dollars in cash and checks given to him every week for doing no additional work. All the other employees tried to get the manager fired because they didn't think it was fair that my brother was given hundreds of thousands of dollars a year more than everyone else. But don't worry, when the manager explained to them that my brother didn't actually get to keep the money and that he was just the middleman between the store and the bank, things quieted down rather quickly. Naturally my brother's arch nemesis still posts on his blog that the store gives my brother hundreds of thousands of dollars for nothing, but he's just a little slow so it's understandable. :P
And yeah, I agree that even if things are carried out as the laws are set up (not likely), it would still serve to strengthen FBO's and I do agree that the Government shouldn't be strengthening FBO's. I do not, however, agree that Obama is trying to give "federal taxpayer funds to religious institutions." That's the kind of oversimplification you hear in the news. The kind of uninformed version of the truth that people grab a hold of and make their political decisions on. The kind of thing that got G.W. voted in for a second term. It's just ignorance.
ryan
· 1 year ago
I disagree David. Yes, I understand that the money is only supposed to be for secular actions carried out by religious organizations, but since when can religions be trusted and who is to oversee to make sure those things stay separate? And even in their supposedly secular purposes, since when can a church be trusted not to use the opportunity to push their religious message on people? Even a soup kitchen, even disaster relief, is all a commercial for the religion. I'm sorry, I just don't have much confidence in true altruism where religious organizations are concerned. Yes, some are OK, but for many their #1 priority is pushing their belief systems and charity is a vehicle to do that. I don't care who opened this door or why, it ought to be closed not opened further.
What about the statement "federal taxpayer funds to religious institutions" is incorrect here? If the Mormons or the Catholics or the Lutherans or the Baptists set up social programs that qualify for federal funds and receive said funds, that is precisely what is happening regardless of whether they claim to have only a secular agenda. I just see very little reason to trust that agenda at all. Let them do their charity by swindling their own flocks for the money or leave it to truly secular institutions who don't have a faith to peddle.
david
· 1 year ago
Well you are probably right not to trust them. There's already been problems. But I don't know how effective the Government would be if they designed all their policies around how much they trust people. Who would get a license to drive? Nobody can be trusted to always drive under the speed limit. I won't go on.
According to David Kuo (former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and a person who has actually reviewed Obama's plan), this "expanding" is looking at what isn't working with the program and working on it. If religious groups are abusing the system, that would probably fall into the "not working" category.
I'm also not convinced that your secular institutions don't have something to peddle. Non-religious organizations run all over the place doing charity work. Sorry to break the news, but it's not entirely out of the goodness of their hearts. It's PR. But that doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in motivation if there's results.
My wife just got back from the Parenting Oasis. They meet at a church even though they are almost all the crunchy granola alt-faith types. When I rolled my eyes at it being in a church she said, "I think it's good that they let them use the space." Then she went on to describe the community art project that the teenagers were building in the parking lot (some sort of cardboard shark). She told me about the daycare and the cool creations the kids made that lined the halls. They are close to the community and are perfectly positioned to take the lead in charitable work.
Of course if you went there you'd probably spot a cross in one of the clay sculptures and scoff. You'd look at a drawing and sarcastically ask if the little girl who drew it is currently being molested by a priest somewhere. I mean yeah, that's one way to live life. Not mine though.
ryan
· 1 year ago
Of course I wouldn't scoff at any of that stuff or assume the priests were molesting the kids. I think it's perfectly fine for religions to do whatever they like with community involvement. I just don't see how it's any of the federal governments business to finance it. Let 'em promote their ideas, even if they are hogwash, that's fine by me, but my tax dollars shouldn't be spent to help prop up their institutions, that's all I'm sayin'. The churches have a right to exist and it's great that they want to help as long as they stay out of the government. The major reason for this is because the majority of religions are a form of institutionalized, canonized, irrationality and are at the root of a majority of the wars in human history and most of the hindrance of human progress. Sure there are exceptions, but this is the rule and looking at history one sees that governments have only been corrupted by close ties to religion. Once you start down a path such as this it sets a precedent that allows religion to make more and more in-roads into government. Let 'em have their little fantasy world and their happy little lies and their corrupt clergy and their swindling of their flock, that's fine. Let 'em distribute magazines, give out soup, tell people that fictional people were killed and resurrected to atone for the sins of other fictional people, I don't care, but just don't give them money that could be better spent maintaining national infrastructure, providing universal health care, or, better yet, could be given back to the taxpayers.
falterer
· 1 year ago
Usually PZ is spot on, but I still mostly disagree with you both on this one.
Don't overlook the word Initiative. It's not just there for filler. I agree that the OFBCI doesn't need to fund programs that already have stable funding, but the intent of the OFBCI is to dangle the carrot for communities to start such programs, or to provide incentive for them to continue such programs if funding falls short. Churches are community centers, which means they can offer manpower to people and causes that need it. All they need is a little (finger-thumb rub) Initiative.
How do you make sure the money really is being spent on turnips and soup bowls and not on new raiments? The same way the IRS makes sure we disclose our taxes correctly: receipts and occasional audits. I've heard rumor the OFBCI doesn't even do that at the moment; perhaps it isn't receiving enough funding or attention to audit or enforce correct spending.
(I also disagree that returning money to the taxpayers is better than providing universal health care, but maybe that was just a figure of speech.)
ryan
· 1 year ago
I would rather see universal health care, truly, but I was throwing a bone to David's Libertarian leanings. ;-)
david
· 1 year ago
"...I was throwing a bone to David’s Libertarian leanings"
Aww, and here I thought you were starting to make sense. :P
No, you make some good points and it's hard to argue that the ultimate goal shouldn't be to move away from FBO's having a role in this. Still, it seems a little discriminatory or prejudicial. I mean, if the government says that it's taking bids from organizations that are setting up to offer aid to the poor, I don't think it's right to say, "Except for religious organizations - you guys are a bunch of nutters." Or even to say that they are more likely to misuse the funds. Any organization can misuse funds - religion holds no monopoly on that. You've said that atheists are the last group for which it is socially acceptable to discriminate against (or something like that) - I don't believe turnabout is fair play. The day will come when we are the majority. I'd like to think we'll do a better job than they did.
Oh, and why doesn't your blog have a "preview" option for posting comments?
ryan
· 1 year ago
I have no idea why there is no preview option. I'll see if I can enable it in Wordpress...
Anthony
· 1 year ago
I had something additional to add to this discussion. To preface this, I don't really have too much involvement or knowledge of charitable organizations as my preference is to do things on an individual level.
But, recently I was listening to a broadcast of This American Life that in part dealt with two New Yorkers who left their finance sector jobs to go homeless and pursue their dream of writing poetry. This meant that in order to clothe themselves, eat, and have shelter that they were totally depedent on various charities. I can't say that I agree with their course of action, but, I'll say that these guys are intimately aquainted with charitable organizations. As such, one thing they said, really stood out to me. They remaked that if it weren't for the churches, the homeless people in New York would starve. They then recounted how lacking in comparison similar governmental systems were. So from these two homeless guy's perspective, faith-based charities were absolutely critical to the health & welfare of the impoverished in New York.
And this reminded me of something that the Roman Emperor Julian had written. At the time Julian was trying to convert the empire from Christianity back to its Pagan roots. The Christian's notable charity was making support for this difficult. Julian lamented to his Pagan High Priest, "the atheist Galileans feed not only their (poor) but ours also"
Personally, I've got serious issues with the Church System and will readily criticize that they are not doing enough charitably in keeping with the principles of Jesus and the example of the early Christian Church. This may seem a bit radical, but, I also believe that Christians should be totally seperate from the Government, not even holding non-profit 501(c)(3) status. At the same time I will have to admit that the charitable services they do provide are greatly beneficial and vital to welfare of society. I can see why the Government would have an interest in supporting these programs.
All Comments
The thing I've been noticing about Mr. Obama is that he is a very gifted politician who is very conscious of electability. His current pandering to evangelicals, expanding on Bush's programs, to me is similar to when he recently spoke to Jewish voters and implied in certain terms that he would be willing to keep the current administration's all-options-are-on-the-table approach to dealing with Iran. Honestly, I don't have hopes that we will see much change if he is elected.
Don't blame me I voted for Kodos!
We already know Obama "believes deeply in the separation of church and state." We've heard him express that message very eloquently, using the majority faith of his audience to frame it. If he stood up and spoke abruptly of secularism, he would risk heckling and dismissal. Instead, he found a way to deliver his message using religious terminology.
"Few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples and mosques."
This isn't a recommendation, but a statement of fact: the majority of Americans attend church. Obama sees church cliques as a potential resource that can be harnessed to assist their surrounding communities. I don't object to the concept of "faith-based initiatives" when what is really meant is leveraging the community effect of churches for some actual benefit.
I recognize that caution is due. "Faith-based initiative" promises have been abused to directly fund religious propaganda in prisons and elsewhere. I'd like to push Obama to elaborate on his plans and explain how we can eliminate such wasteful spending and make sure faith communities really do provide "social service programs for the poor."
I think Obama's basically saying: "OFBCI? It's a nice idea. But you're doing it wrong."
Also part of PRWORA was the shift from having the Federal Government take care of all these programs to having the states take on ownership. The idea being that as you move closer to the level of the people in need, the better you'll be able to help them. In this vein, smaller organizations were enlisted by states to help as well. And here's where Charitable Choice comes in to play.
Charitable Choice was also part of PRWORA. What it says is that religious organizations can bid for TANF (as well as CSBG's, SAMHSA's etc.) contracts just like any other organization. You see, states can hire out groups to help disseminate the government funds to the poor. Going on the whole separation of Church and State ideas, religious groups wouldn't normally be included. Charitable Choice made an exception of the Government's typical separation stance. BUT, with certain rules.
Under Charitable Choice, government money cannot be used to pay for religious stuff. The money has to go only to fulfill the public social service goals. Additionally, religious organizations can not discriminate based on religion where these social programs are concerned.
So the whole idea of Charitable Choice is anti-discriminatory. Any organization can bid for these social contracts and religious organizations aren't going to be singled out as long as they keep the social programs separate from religious ones.
But there was a problem. No one bit. The Churches didn't want any part of it because they were sure it would mess with their religious missions and of course there was some apprehension on the government's part because of the Establishment Clause.
Here is where G.W. comes in. He created something called The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The purpose was to get governments and religious organizations together to make Charitable Choice work.
So the conclusion is this. The Federal Government realized that it sucked at getting our nation's poor the aid it needed. It set out to transfer that responsibility to State Governments. To further help, it set up the provision that States could use local organizations to help in this endeavor. Of course, religious institutions are right there in the thick of helping out those in need so special provisions were made to include religious organizations if they kept that portion of their activities separate from their religion. Since there was some apprehension on both sides (state government and faith-based orgs) to partner up, a special department was set up to get things going between the State Governments and the local groups that would most likely be interested in helping the poor.
Obviously G.W. has been criticized for setting this up. What you may not know is that a good portion of the criticism is that he set this up in name only and that it hasn't really done all that it was supposed to do. Obama's expansion of this Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is more about making it work. And good for him.
I will say though that I do understand your concern. Of course, American Atheists doesn't need a special office. They are already more than welcome to bid on TANF's, Welfare-to-Work, and Community Services Block Grants. But do they? (I rather hope so. It would be a good way to show that FBO's don't have a monopoly on charity.)
Also interesting to note is that Clinton created Charitable Choice and both Gore and Bush endorsed it. Obama, Bush, and McCain are all for OFBCI. The only one that I know of that might not be for it is my boy Barr. But of course his concern would be less about whether religions should be involved and more about whether the government should be.
Read his take at Pharyngula
You know, when you can barely afford your health insurance and even with it you end up paying hundreds of dollars out of pocket a year, and your child faces entering school in a couple years where he'll be one of 40 kids in the class, and you had to give up your house because you couldn't afford it anymore, and your brother-in-law can't even enjoy the fireworks show because his PTSD from his extended stay in Iraq is so bad, and your family can't afford gas or groceries without using the charge card, and your friends can't get married because the country sees them as not equal to everyone else based on their sexual orientation, and the environment is being so desecrated that you have daily anxiety about what kind of world your child is going to grow up in, well then sometimes you just vote for the person who isn't going to make all these things worse. And sometimes you just get the best option in office, and worry about the nuances of their political platform later.
But, that's me, I just have constant dread and anxiety for my child and don't even want to live in this country if Mccain gets elected, so I don't really give a crap if Obama is pandering to the evangelicals right now. Let him, then maybe he'll get more votes, and then he'll get elected, and then my life will suck a little less.
Think of the greater good man.
In the short term, Obama is the best option, I agree, but supporting a candidate doesn't always mean agreeing with them. It can also mean attempting to convince them that a position they have taken is wrong, especially where the long-term health of the nation is concerned.
"This is something I absolutely, positively, cannot support."
"I would never vote for McCain, but if you’re going to continue laying the groundwork for a State in which secular free thinkers such as myself will not be welcome, then I cannot support your candidacy either."
I totally support trying to change a stance that you don't agree with. I totally support writing to him and imploring him to reconsider. I just don't support throwing your vote away if he doesn't change his mind, because that puts us all in jeopardy.
And yeah, I agree that even if things are carried out as the laws are set up (not likely), it would still serve to strengthen FBO's and I do agree that the Government shouldn't be strengthening FBO's. I do not, however, agree that Obama is trying to give "federal taxpayer funds to religious institutions." That's the kind of oversimplification you hear in the news. The kind of uninformed version of the truth that people grab a hold of and make their political decisions on. The kind of thing that got G.W. voted in for a second term. It's just ignorance.
What about the statement "federal taxpayer funds to religious institutions" is incorrect here? If the Mormons or the Catholics or the Lutherans or the Baptists set up social programs that qualify for federal funds and receive said funds, that is precisely what is happening regardless of whether they claim to have only a secular agenda. I just see very little reason to trust that agenda at all. Let them do their charity by swindling their own flocks for the money or leave it to truly secular institutions who don't have a faith to peddle.
According to David Kuo (former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and a person who has actually reviewed Obama's plan), this "expanding" is looking at what isn't working with the program and working on it. If religious groups are abusing the system, that would probably fall into the "not working" category.
I'm also not convinced that your secular institutions don't have something to peddle. Non-religious organizations run all over the place doing charity work. Sorry to break the news, but it's not entirely out of the goodness of their hearts. It's PR. But that doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in motivation if there's results.
My wife just got back from the Parenting Oasis. They meet at a church even though they are almost all the crunchy granola alt-faith types. When I rolled my eyes at it being in a church she said, "I think it's good that they let them use the space." Then she went on to describe the community art project that the teenagers were building in the parking lot (some sort of cardboard shark). She told me about the daycare and the cool creations the kids made that lined the halls. They are close to the community and are perfectly positioned to take the lead in charitable work.
Of course if you went there you'd probably spot a cross in one of the clay sculptures and scoff. You'd look at a drawing and sarcastically ask if the little girl who drew it is currently being molested by a priest somewhere. I mean yeah, that's one way to live life. Not mine though.
Don't overlook the word Initiative. It's not just there for filler. I agree that the OFBCI doesn't need to fund programs that already have stable funding, but the intent of the OFBCI is to dangle the carrot for communities to start such programs, or to provide incentive for them to continue such programs if funding falls short. Churches are community centers, which means they can offer manpower to people and causes that need it. All they need is a little (finger-thumb rub) Initiative.
How do you make sure the money really is being spent on turnips and soup bowls and not on new raiments? The same way the IRS makes sure we disclose our taxes correctly: receipts and occasional audits. I've heard rumor the OFBCI doesn't even do that at the moment; perhaps it isn't receiving enough funding or attention to audit or enforce correct spending.
(I also disagree that returning money to the taxpayers is better than providing universal health care, but maybe that was just a figure of speech.)
Aww, and here I thought you were starting to make sense. :P
No, you make some good points and it's hard to argue that the ultimate goal shouldn't be to move away from FBO's having a role in this. Still, it seems a little discriminatory or prejudicial. I mean, if the government says that it's taking bids from organizations that are setting up to offer aid to the poor, I don't think it's right to say, "Except for religious organizations - you guys are a bunch of nutters." Or even to say that they are more likely to misuse the funds. Any organization can misuse funds - religion holds no monopoly on that. You've said that atheists are the last group for which it is socially acceptable to discriminate against (or something like that) - I don't believe turnabout is fair play. The day will come when we are the majority. I'd like to think we'll do a better job than they did.
Oh, and why doesn't your blog have a "preview" option for posting comments?
But, recently I was listening to a broadcast of This American Life that in part dealt with two New Yorkers who left their finance sector jobs to go homeless and pursue their dream of writing poetry. This meant that in order to clothe themselves, eat, and have shelter that they were totally depedent on various charities. I can't say that I agree with their course of action, but, I'll say that these guys are intimately aquainted with charitable organizations. As such, one thing they said, really stood out to me. They remaked that if it weren't for the churches, the homeless people in New York would starve. They then recounted how lacking in comparison similar governmental systems were. So from these two homeless guy's perspective, faith-based charities were absolutely critical to the health & welfare of the impoverished in New York.
And this reminded me of something that the Roman Emperor Julian had written. At the time Julian was trying to convert the empire from Christianity back to its Pagan roots. The Christian's notable charity was making support for this difficult. Julian lamented to his Pagan High Priest, "the atheist Galileans feed not only their (poor) but ours also"
Personally, I've got serious issues with the Church System and will readily criticize that they are not doing enough charitably in keeping with the principles of Jesus and the example of the early Christian Church. This may seem a bit radical, but, I also believe that Christians should be totally seperate from the Government, not even holding non-profit 501(c)(3) status. At the same time I will have to admit that the charitable services they do provide are greatly beneficial and vital to welfare of society. I can see why the Government would have an interest in supporting these programs.