Obama Halts Sermons during Soup Kitchen Meals

[ProSense]

Obama Halts Sermons during Soup Kitchen Meals

Friday, November 26, 2010

Faith-based organizations that accept federal funding cannot proselytize while providing social programs to the needy, under a new executive order signed by President Barack Obama. The order changes the original initiative, adopted by President George W. Bush in December 2002, which allowed faith-based social programs to receive tax dollars.

President Obama’s decree prevents soup kitchens run by churches from conducting sermons while feeding people, for example. The White House expects federal officials to monitor publicly-funded faith-based groups to ensure they comply with the new order.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State welcomed Obama’s decision, but also was disappointed that it did not go further. Specifically, they were unhappy that the program will still allow churches to accept federal dollars and allow religious organizations to display religious art, icons, scriptures and other symbols while taking in government support.

The order also did not address the issue of faith-based hiring at religious institutions that accept federal funds.

Executive Order 13559 (PDF)

[gateley]

1. That's because he's Muslim.

This is great and how it should be in our country! Good for Obama! :thumbsup:

[treestar]

6. ROFL!

It's a good move. Conservatives want no government help to the poor, just private charity, which of course would mean they could load it with conditions.

[RandomThoughts]

2. I so want to disagree with that, but do see both sides of that issue.

basically food should not be used as coercion to hear a sermon, however is someone asks people should share what they think.

Been thinking on that issue, my first post was that it did not make sense, but can see some multiple issues in it, specifically that their should not be some requirement to share food for the poor and hungry.

really deep subject, it should be enough for them to help the poor, then the poor will come to them and ask them why if there is a need to share with them beliefs.

So it seems to make some sense, they can opt out of tax dollars, but their is an imbalance there also.



going to have to think on that more, really interesting question, but the concept of coercion is also in the question.



The story of the good Samaritan did not mention any sermons.


Going to have to spend some time thinking on that, many variables, taxation, coercion, freedoms of speech, obligation of how taxation money is used, many issues.

The slippery slope comes in when society moves to more types of taxation funding to fix capitalism imbalance, from there the ideas of spiritual thought could be not represented by threat of loss of funding, and interesting question of money and spiritual ideas. With questions of any abridging of speech by state spending requirements used as a way to create compliance to what people think and want to express. That is a bad trend and where government spending fails, if it is used for social control over expression of belief.


What if the state used some dollars to fix media consolidation by expanding public tv, would that mean they would not allow sermons on TV, what if they invested in educational grants, would non secular colleges be exempt, at some point their is an imbalance their that fails by being a proactive prohibition of speech, and not a protection of speech.


Thats the issue, proactive prohibition, is what is obviously bad, not a protection of some religious expression. But without that limitation, then groups would want multiple sermons, from many groups. Their would be a claim for sermons to be allowed by many groups just because of some small donation of tax monies.

Maybe the tax donations should be segmented to only pay for 12 hours of operation, 1/2 the overhead of a facility for instance, then the other 1/2 that is not tax dollars would be for daytime operations where no tax dollars would be part of the facility operation during the time of distribution of meals. Doesn't make sense that some small percent of a budget would effect entire choice of operation either.

[SkyDaddy7]

5. Federal Dollars are the key...

If they want to feed the needy without Federal Dollars then they can preach all they want. I think we allowing too much religion & government interaction but that is me & the way I read the Constitution. It leaves 10-15% of Americans on the outside! Not cool!

[RandomThoughts]

17. The problem is once Federal interaction in society becomes needed to stem profit motive excesses.

And instead have a motive to help all people, that means more federal spending, and if federal spending outlaws speech of some ideas, it becomes a form of control over thought. Hence where you could argue that other teachings should be allowed at such places, saying such teachings being banned is a different thing.

It says that to get federal dollars you have to follow some federal standard of speech, is that any different then saying to get a meal you have to listen to a sermon? It almost seems to be the same thing, just a different teachings.

I do think religion should not be coercive, but proactive prohibition of speech is a slippery slope as a requirement for tax dollars, it effectively makes the entire removal of government argument possible, and is why the conservative position exist, when such things are done.

Especially when things like the military enforce an economic form of speech in many countries. Aren't tax dollars used to promote money first capitalism in many places?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. A good step. nt

[Autumn]

4. K/R

I like that.

[jenmito]

7. K&R even though Obama STILL=Bush in some people's minds. n/t

[golfguru]

8. About time!

If sermonizing during free meals is'nt blackmail then what is?

[herbm]

22. I'm christian and it is blackmail. Charity has no conditions. Balckmail and forced

sermons aren't christian.

[babylonsister]

9. Rec'd! nt

[Arkana]

10. How can anyone here argue with this?

If they can they are blinded by hatred. This was an excellent decision.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Like most acts of an Ultramoderate, it can be disliked from both directions

First off, there never should have been such an operation; it's in direct conflict with Article One of the Bill of Rights. Sure, it was there before our Constitutional Scholar/Religious enabler President took office, but sustaining it has been his fault.

The reactionaries will hate this because they hate anything any non-Republican does and because the religious among them are dominionists who claim the god-given right to own government and create an aristocracy of believers here on earth. Lefties will take issue with it because he's trying--as ALWAYS--to have things both ways by redressing grievances while still keeping the source of the grievance instituted, and the seriously irreligious will take issue with it because it still leaves this ugliness in place and further drives into our subconsciouses that this theocratic crap isn't a big deal anyway.

Although belonging to both of the latter two groups (a lefty who's sick of the ineffectual and pathetic enabling of power, and someone who wants religion strictly quarantined in the private sphere) I'm not spitting hatred over this; I've long since accepted that he's prone to all of the easy ways out in politics, and god-sucking is the mother lode of bullshit. To me, it's just more confirmation of the constant twitchings of a one-trick pony: chart the middle course in all waters.

[namahage]

29. Are you sure you mean Article One? Not Amendment One?

http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

Article the first (Not Ratified)

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments...

They define the amendments as "articles", and I like to refer to the first ten, which came as a group, as further articles due to the somewhat perjorative connotation of the word "amendments".

For me, to refer to any of these ten as "amendments" suggests that they are changes or not as intrinsic to the core of our laws as the body of the Constitution itself. To do so is to somewhat infer a cheapening of these particular laws, and since I hold some of them as so dearly fundamental to our government, I don't want any naysayer to scoff at them as afterthoughts.

They weren't really afterthoughts; the Convention tried to get the states to ratify it, but it got kicked back to them, which prompted them to write the first 10 amendments, which I admittedly snottily refer to as the 10 articles of the Bill of Rights, instead of a group of ten oh-by-the-ways or ten not-so-important-thoughts.

Hope this doesn't come off as defensive or icky, but there's a method to my maddeningness.

Thus, not all articles are amendments, but apparently, at least these amendments are articles.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[patrice]

12. I don't understand what is to prevent FBOs from replicating overhead over and over again, by creatin

g a bunch of highly desirable jobs for "saints" on the backs of those in need. What will the performance measures be, created and evaluated by whom?

[jwirr]

26. I worked in social services for the government and I was making my

living off the backs of the poor and disabled as much as anyone else. We have a whole bureaucracy doing that. Eisenhower once suggested that if we just sent every poor family $35,000 a year (1950s dollars) we would end poverty. He just wanted to get rid of the middleman.

[craigmatic]

13. I'm glad he did this. If someone needs help you help them because it's the right thing to do but

just because you help somebody doesn't mean that you have the right to preach to them too.

[DesertDiamond]

14. Another great move from Obama! Even in the worst of my times I would not go to the local food bank

because I was not going to sit and listen to a sermon in order to get groceries. The same when I was homeless back in the 1980s. I went to a shelter, talked with the woman at the admissions desk, she took me to a room where I was to stay, then demanded that I pray. When I said, "I have to pray to stay here?" she just stared me down until I finally left. I had been trying to avoid staying with friends, but I went ahead and did that instead. I have no idea if that shelter received tax dollars. But I am quite sure the local food bank is getting "faith based" federal funding and I am going to go there and see if they continue to use it is a forced audience for their sermons. If they do, I'm going to report them.

[alp227]

15. that's ok, $%&^* religion anyway, and religious orgs should NOT get fed funding

oh yeah, TAX CHURCHES THAT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ADVOCACY TOO. Ya hear that, LDS Church and all churches that helped pass laws against same sex marriage???

[lib_wit_it]

18. Yeah! Tax the Hell out of them!

[TheKentuckian]

16. A decent and sane step

[LAGC]

19. We need to see more moves like this from Obama.

A little more muscle and a little less selling out to the conservatives.

[cornermouse]

20. I support halting sermons while passing out food completely.

I'd support him even more if he'd drop the faith-based government money entirely.

[herbm]

23. As a christian, I agree with you 100%. Charity should have no conditions and come directly from the

donor, not taxes.

[tomg]

21. And you know that Beck, Hannity

Limbaugh and the rest will spin it as "Obama signs order outlawing saying grace before meals."

[RainDog]

24. so he might as well do the constitutional thing

and not give federal funds to organizations that refuse to hire based upon someone's gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

in other words, tax dollars should not be given to religious institutions, period.

at least the poor don't have to listen to asses bray while they take federal monies and turn around a complain about the govt, tho.

[jwirr]

28. All government money should have these strings attached. Or they

can just do it themselves.

[jwirr]

25. That is good. I MN many faith based program are very helpful just

because they do not stand around preaching. For example Lutheran Social Services does budget counseling and is the guardian for many of our developmentally disabled persons without preaching. Boooosh want these program so they could preach but this will make them much better. Many intercity churches are needed to get help to people who are in their catchment area.

[anachro1]

27. Accept Jesus

or we WILL allow you to starve.

[polichick]

31. Good news! nt