Thoughts on the NOW segment on faith-based programs

[IrateCitizen]

First off, if you didn't see the piece, please don't come into the discussion with both guns a-blazin'. The reason for this request is that the piece left me feeling somewhat ambivalent -- much more so than BEFORE I saw it -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it affected anyone with half a brain in the same way.

My first impression is still that I am uncomfortable with the idea of tax dollars going to religious-based institutions. But I also had to admit that this approach succeeded in many ways where the typical "state approach" failed miserably with regards to welfare recipients. First and foremost, the recipient was given access to a team of people who genuinely cared about their well-being. This approach gave a much greater sense of community support to the welfare program, as opposed to a simple financial payoff. The recipients were able to gain access to people who were interested in truly helping them to get back on their feet again.

HOWEVER...

I was deeply troubled by the proselytizing taking place -- especially the comment by one man that they were totally aware that they were "not allowed to do so by the federal government". But they did it anyway. And there would be no stopping a group with this kind of belief system, because they genuinely believe that the only way to be saved is to be saved through Christ, and if they didn't push the recipients in this direction, they would be failing their duty as Christians.

What I would be interested in is how we can provide the POSITIVE aspects of this approach -- a sense of community, a personal support network, etc. -- while eliminating the NEGATIVE aspects -- the interjection of evangelism into the mix.

Any thoughts?

[jono]

1. No easy answers

I saw it and I have to admit that in certain ways, it improved my outlook on faith-based programs as well. But in the end I felt pretty much the way I did in the beginning: I don't think it's a good idea. It was really nice to see a group of six or eight people trying to help the single mom of three children. But imagine when the talking session is over, you have six or eight people "encouraging" you to attend church with them next Sunday after they just spent an hour talking through your issues with you - I think if I were in that position I would feel obligated to go, just to show my appreciation. That's probably why that particular program says that 85% of program participants end up getting involved religiously. They say it's not mandatory, but then they put you in a position where you look like a real jerk if you take advantage of their time and then decline to attend church with them.

I don't think these programs could work without the risk of prosletyzing unless non-religious groups administered them. But it seems like the reason the religious groups get involved is because they have the time and goodwill to do it. Getting outside organizations involved would probably take a greater amount of resources than a religious group, and consequently, negate any savings that you get by using such groups.

[IrateCitizen]

4. Thanks for reinforcing my cynicism!

;-)

Seriously, I was left with much the same impression. But I think I'd give the religious people a LITTLE more credit than you did here. While I am no more comfortable with their proselytizing than you are, I don't think they're in this to just gain new converts. I got the impression that they were truly interested in doing whatever they could to help the single mom in the story. It just so happens that they truly believe that an essential part of helping that single mom is getting her to go to their church, so she can be "saved".

And therein lies the conundrum. With groups like this, you can't separate the good works part from the proselytizing part -- because in their eyes, they are one and the same.

[jono]

11. I didn't mean to shortchange them

in the credibility department. You're right, I think that they do mean well, and that they truly are trying to help. But like you said, it's next to impossible for them to separate the good works from the proseletyzing. My father is a Lutheran minister, and when I was young we used to leave flyers all over the neighborhood. I would sometimes question what we were doing but I was always told that we had to "go forth and spread the good news to our community so that they too can be saved." It wasn't anything that anyone else was thinking about; it was just a given for my parents that we had to tell other people the "good news". I think what NOW is showing is much the same situation - religious groups trying to spread good works and "the Word" in the process - only on NOW it involved tax dollars.

[LostInAmerica]

2. I was highly disturbed by it

No ambivalence on my part at all here. I will say in the interest of full disclosure that I am an atheist and was raised as a Jew. Therefore, I've never had a "Christ-centered" (as the Faith Partners people put it) anything. And yes, this certainly colored my impressions in a substantial way.

For one, I got a very disquieting sense that these people weren't proselytizing in the course of helping people, but were helping people in the course of proselytizing. You could feel the palpable sense of disappointment and irritation from the Faith Partners people when the woman they were assisting decided at the last minute not to go to church. And seeing those people in church with that woman's children made my flesh crawl. ("Do you want to go meet some people in the basement?" I wonder what the people in the basement would've had to say to the children.) These people clearly want to drag the poor and vulnerable along to a relationship with Christ, whatever the hell that is. They're using tax dollars from across the religious spectrum to do just that.

As I watched, I couldn't help but wonder how these people would react to somebody like me. Let's say I'd fallen on hard times and needed state assistance. Even if these people could help me with my day-to-day life and such, which I highly doubt, they couldn't possibly get me to church. I'm not only an atheist, but I'm an irretrievable atheist. Would these people continue to help me or would they move on to a softer target and let me languish? I think we know the answer to that one.

I don't trust them as far as I can throw them and their motives are, at best, suspect.

On a more trivial note, the identical robotic, happy-face speech patterns of the Faith Partners people had my flesh crawling like the cartoon man lost in the desert.

[jono]

7. I agree very much with this:

"...I got a very disquieting sense that these people weren't proselytizing in the course of helping people, but were helping people in the course of proselytizing. You could feel the palpable sense of disappointment and irritation from the Faith Partners people when the woman they were assisting decided at the last minute not to go to church."

I couldn't agree more. It felt like they were just dancing around that pesky little "separation of church and state" thing. I'm not sure why the mother let her kids go to church without her, though - I thought that was kind of a bad move. But like I said earlier, they put you into a position where you seem like a real jerk if you decline their "offers".....

[IrateCitizen]

9. I think it's important to look at this from their point of view

The evangelicals involved in the program, I mean.

They are obviously getting involved in this program because they are interested in helping people. That's not a bad thing, in and of itself. However, an essential part in their helping people, according to their beliefs, is getting people to embrace a relationship with God through Christ.

It's not a situation where the proselytizing comes before the helping, or vice versa. It is a situation where they are one and the same thing. And perhaps THAT is even more discomforting than if they were simply getting involved in order to proselytize.

[sangh0]

15. I'm not so sure about "one and the same thing"

If they were truly concerned about helping those people, they could do so without the assistance of govt funding, and groups like these have a history of denying aid to those who wont pray with them.

I'm not saying that these people have NO intentions of helping people. I'm just not so sure their desire to help is as great as their desire to convert.

on edit: And I'm pretty sure these groups (as opposed to the well-intentioned, but confused individuals) have little interest in helping the poor. I think they're in it for the money, the political power it brings, and the desire to starve social programs by drawing off the funds for their own purposes.

[Francis]

14. ditto n/t

[LostInAmerica]

20. I think she needed a break

I think she let her children go to church with the Faith Partners folks in order to get an hour or two of time to herself. I'm a parent, too, and I remember what it was like to have small children. You'd damn near kill for an hour of peace.

[LeahMira]

16. Spot on!

For one, I got a very disquieting sense that these people weren't proselytizing in the course of helping people, but were helping people in the course of proselytizing.

I think that sentence hits the nail on the head. It's not necessarily true of all faith-based groups, but it is what is most problemmatic about the faith-based funding proposals in general.

Also, is it not possible in some cases that funding the social services areas only works to free up funds that the organization can then allocate to more aggressive proselytizing efforts?

[chadm]

29. Of course

The thought of my tax money going to something I STRONGLY oppose (the systematic replacement of critical thought with delusions and lies) is almost as bad as my tax dollars going to murder innocent people around the world.

The only religion needed is the realization that we are all human beings and are all connected. We should help each other just because it is the right thing to do.

[Walt Starr]

3. so-called "Faith Based Initiative = welfare for churches

There is no other way to say it. The churches are failing in the marketplace of ideas and need to be subsidized by the governement.

[IrateCitizen]

5. Walt, did you actually see the piece I'm referring to?

Or are you making a blanket statement?

[Walt Starr]

22. Sorry, every time I see anything about the so-called "Faith Based

Initiative" I have to remind everybody we are talking about welfare for churches.

[IrateCitizen]

24. Even if I specifically requested it be in context of the NOW piece?

Thanks for your consideration and courtesy, Walt. :eyes:

[sangh0]

6. What concerned me was

the college grant that the group leader (at least she seemed to be the leader) said she had for the welfare recipient. I couldn't help but wonder where that grant is coming from, how much money is behind this faith-based effort, and whether or not that money (and the grants) will disappear once the Federal Treasury's doors have been flung wide open to the religionists. I also wondered if she would get the grant if she continues to not go to church.

[IrateCitizen]

8. That didn't cross my mind, but it is disturbing nonetheless.

Thanks for raising the question. I'm wondering that now, myself.

[Terwilliger]

10. Those are the religious people you keep demanding that I tolerate

it's a bummer, huh?

Yes, I have a solution...have faith-based charities give their money to government organized social outreach programs. Then there's no problem, and those religious organizations can say that they've done their part. If they wish to further volunteer their time and want to talk religion, well then it's not state-sponsored, so they can do what they like.

It's like education...should we hand that over to "faith-based" organiztions because it's not working? Or, do we work to make that governmental institution better?

[sangh0]

12. No, it's not them you should tolerate

It's the liberal believers you should tolerate.

[Terwilliger]

23. the liberal believers tend to bring their belief to others

not mandate as a consequence of their status, position, or place in society

[IrateCitizen]

13. No, they are not, Terwilliger.

While I can acknowledge the fact that these people are attempting to do good works, I cannot condone the fact that they must proselytize to others in the process. I'm not into anyone shoving their beliefs on others, especially from a position of power that these people enjoy, whether they realize it or not.

And I'm disappointed that you would make such a baseless accusation.

Finally, the idea that it needs to be strictly a "governmental organization" is a false one, IMHO. In fact, I believe that is one of the things that we, on the left, bite ourselves in the ass about. Government is NOT always the best provider of services -- for one reason, because government cannot provide a sense of COMMUNITY and SUPPORT that is often so badly needed by people in programs such as welfare. What about getting away from the "faith-based" and instead concentrating on grants to community-based organizations, along with the adequate follow-up to make certain that the program is being run "properly"?

[Terwilliger]

21. It's your bailiwick...your religion...

I mean, is there a set of standards for a religious belief? A code of acceptable behavior and belief that remains contained within the guidleines in order to believe? You won't proselytize to the other religious folks, but won't acknowledge that your silence is condoning their proselytizing, and proselytizing the wrong things.

Why on EARTH are you saying government can't hadle this? Are you a Libertarian? Social programs don't have to be beurocratic hell-holes in public service...they can be what we (the people) want them to be.

[IrateCitizen]

27. Will you please cite ONE instance of my condoning their proselytizing?

Just one. I'll bet you can't, because I SPECIFICALLY STATED SEVERAL TIMES in this thread that not only was I NOT OK with their proselytizing, it was an abuse of power on their part, since they have power over the welfare recipients to whom they are administering.

As for saying that "government can't handle this" -- would you say that the administration of welfare was a rousing success prior to the welfare reform under Clinton? Was it an engine that helped propel people to climb out of poverty? Or was it a program that, more often than not, simply provided an economic entitlement that provided a subsistence while not really helping people to improve their situation?

What I proposed, if you'll go back and read carefully, is some sort of partnership between government and community-based organizations to administer benefits AND help recipients? Why? Because, quite often, one of the biggest needs that recipients have is a sense of community -- a network of people who care about them and can personally help them -- and this is the very thing that government is INCAPABLE of providing.

It's not a matter of being "libertarian" or even seeking to privatize the programs. It's a matter of not remaining a slave to ideology and look for the solution that can best help those who need it.

[Terwilliger]

28. INCAPABLE of providing.

WHY?!?!??!! Why is the government incapable? Could it be, because we've all been voting for the same failed system over and over again?

Our two-party system makes our government suck. If you say "well, then there needs to be some other organization that can take over where government fails" GOVERNMENT FAILS! So instead of fixing the government, you look for other instsitutions to come in and take over...Republicans want that too. If there are inadequacies in governmental programs, let's fix the government...that's what it's there for.

I'm not saying you're condoning the proselytizing of the faith-based organizations...I'm saying that you're supporting the same institutions that make the proselytizing happen. The religious organizations that offer this "help" may not have the same interest in it without the god influence they want to disseminate.

[edzontar]

17. I don't doubt the sincerity of these Jesus-types...

But it is their sincerity that SCARES me...these are pod-people, who want to recruit among the unfortunate.

That they MEAN WELL means nothing to me.

What the show clearly represented was an abuse of the government and its funds for the purposeof promoting a particular religion.

As an ex-Catholic atheist, I rcommend you all go out and see the film, "The Magdalene Sisters," for an example of a faith-based "welfare" program in its most terrifying form.

[IrateCitizen]

18. They're committing an abuse of power, plain and simple.

The relationship that they have with the welfare recipients, whether they realize it or not, is a relationship of POWER. They are the ones that have the power, and the recipients are, therefore, dependent on them.

While I would still have a problem with proselytizing on the government dime in an EQUAL relationship -- in this instance it is completely inexcusable. The welfare recipients are obviously concerned that if they say no, the group will no longer help them.

It IS inexcusable on their part -- and the scariest thing is probably that they are unable to fathom such a concept.

[LostInAmerica]

19. You nailed it, IC

This is a relationship of POWER, and it's clear in whose hands the power resides. Certainly not in the hands of some exhausted, frightened, struggling single mother.

[LostInAmerica]

25. Oh, and one other obvious thing

The group in question from the NOW segment was called Faith Partners. Was it something like "Helping Hands" or "Community Outreach" or "Help Partners" or something like that? No! It was Faith Partners. Faith. It's right in their damn name. They wear their agenda on their sleeves as ostentatiously as they wear their beliefs.

Like I said, their motives are suspect at best.

[Wonk]

26. mp3 and quicktime for those who missed it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=413689#415098

[LittleApple81]

31. Wonk: Thanks for the Mahler show. And thanks for all the others

you make available for the rest of us.

[Festivito]

30. I look at it more as diversifying programs.

See if other approaches do work better. Adding soul to the mix when helping people could also be more comprehensive approach, and could be more likely to succeed -- could be.

I still contend that the atheists want to ESTABLISH the religion of no religion. One can see some of the posts above could not help but show their ardent FAITH forcing them to knee-jerk post impertinent statements.

The proselytizing I saw on NOW discomforted me, both as a person wanting to help and as a Christian. Mistakes will be made regardless of the law being tolerant or intolerant of religion.

The bother of allowing this type of mistake fails, for me, to be as bad as the failure on the long term economics of the people in need. If awaking a soul works, why curb it?