Faith-based groups get food-stamp grants

[quaoar]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apscience_story.asp?category=1500&slug=Food%20Stamp%20Grants

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Agriculture on Wednesday awarded $1 million in grants to eight faith- and community-based organizations for food stamp programs.

USDA Secretary Ann Veneman said the grants, to test outreach strategies to underserved individuals and families, would "provide another opportunity to improve access for low-income Americans to a nutritious diet."

The agency made a similar grant of $1 million to eight secular nonprofit and faith-based groups in September. In both cases the recipients are to establish partnerships with employers, food retailers and Food and Nutrition Service programs to educate people about the food stamp program.

< snip >

The eight recipients are the Community Food Bank of Tucson, Ariz.; the Good Faith Fund of Pine Bluff, Ark.; the city of Oakland, Calif.; Harbor Interfaith Services of San Pedro, Calif.; Worcester Community Action Council of Worcester, Mass.; the Food Stamp Bank of Northern Nevada; Congreso de Latinos Unidos in Philadelphia; and the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee.

[Mountainman]

1. Will you have to attend bible study before you get your food stamps?

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Probly.

[Cobalt Violet]

3. Maybe a republican party loyalty oath too.

I wonder if an atheist can get food stamps?

[Cobalt Violet]

oops.

[Bono71]

28. If so, unconstitutional.

[jayfish]

37. What's Your Point?

The SCOTUS will side with the government on this ...guaranteed. "Unconstitutional"? That's a good one.

Jay


EDITED FOR GRAMMER

[Bono71]

39. No...The SCOTUS has already weighed in on similar issues...

the ACLU will be all over this if that is the case.

[jayfish]

40. We Shall See. -NT-

Jay

[not fooled]

44. yeah, if not this SCOTUS...

...then the new "improved" version once * gets 1-2 more appts. Back to the Dark Ages!

[cornermouse]

51. Round here prior to Thanksgiving

I was told that they were going down the streets in the poorer sections just giving out bags of groceries to whoever was at home and telling them what church was passing out the payola. This was after it was announced that church chain got a multi-million slush fund from Bush and the gov...

[Walt Starr]

4. Based upon the organizations listed

I don't have any problems with this.

[illflem]

9. Me neither

I don't believe in religion but know many of the churches in my area feed the poor. Seems like a good place to start since one of so called religious morals is helping the poor.

[The Straight Story]

11. I don't either - but

it is damn sad that we even need to do this really.

It does bring up a slew of sub-discussions though. Is the fed govt the best group to handle things or would it all bog down in bureacracy (ie slow or dollar value less because higher over head of administration), will we always have a poverty level in this country and what keeps it in existence (which reminds me of a study I saw on the homeless saying the numbers actually went up in the 90's when things were really going well.), should any conditions exist for help (like counseling, et al), and we could go on.

What do we see (or those here) as the best approach to attack this problem and it's causes. Studies help in defining who the poor are and it's causes (which can be varied) so perhaps there is no one approach and no one solution or body which can handle the solution(s) decided upon.

I dunno, seems like a wide open area of discussion. Input always appreciated.

[Walt Starr]

22. Few people know that the reason churches were intially tax esempt

was because the churches would provide social services thus relieving the government from that necessity.

The churches have failed to keep up their end of the tax exempt bargain, so they should be taxed and taxed heavily now! Instead, they want welfare for churches.

[The Straight Story]

25. So they don't provide for others at all now?

Of course, I know that is not what you're saying. But how much is enough? From Salvation Army to local lutheran churches I have seen plenty of them providing assistance (in time, money, food goods, et al) to people of all faiths (my x-pastors' wife ran a food bank which we assisted in).

We can find as much fault in the churches over the centuries as we can mankind in general, from the government on down the line people let us down (of course, better records were kept in some groups and areas so we can attack them more readily than say, shamans et al in other places). And if we choose only to see the negative then we are not really seeing all sides of the story (which probably mean the MSM is not really covering things well IMHO - not saying you are, just making a general comment).

I am reminded of a book on 'communes' (if you will ) in the 1800's - there were communist groups, religious right wing ones, left wing ones, etc where the people had their own small government and people would live their of their own free will. They generally took care of one another and there was no need for the larger federal government to get invovled. Today we have a more restrictive society with loads more federal regulations/laws which curtail freedoms and make it harder for 'the poor' to survive - hence the need for the government to make up for things. They have garnered more power and control and are therefore more responsible for things - whereas in a free community that community is more repsonsible (generally speaking).

If this continues down the same path then who wins? The government grows in power (and the ability to make us jump through their hoops for food). I am not sure with * in office this is a good thing :)

But I do appreciate your insight. Thanks for taking the time to reply and offer views which help me to consider a wider range of ideals.

[Ardee]

5. cheap enough

125K each to feed some hungry folks...seems economical enough. You know, there seems to be a rather knee jerk reaction to anything religious around here, from some anyway........religious groups can be capable of doing good works, you might understand, some do not even make religious worship a requirement for receiving such ......

[Pithlet]

36. As long as attending a sermon isn't required

or the churches don't guilt people into attending those services, I have no problem with it. However, it is very common for churches to require or strongly suggest that people attend service before they receive aid. If any of that aid is coming from the government, they should not be able to do that. The old carrot on a stick method of converting people. Some churches have fought for the ability to receive government aid to help people while forcing them to attend service, and a lot of people who back up faith based charity see no problem with it. That is what most of us have a problem with.

[Ardee]

42. Have you ever been hungry? or homelesss

sitting through a prayer is a small pricee to pay for a meal when hungry. While I believe that a small percentage of faith based groups are using govenrment funding in ways open to criticism I do not believe that this is one of those cases.

There is a tendency here at DU to jump on all religious affiliations and religious groups providing services to the needy...silly really and playing directly into the hands of those who besmirch us and distort our message....they do not need further help from you.......far better you save your criticisms for those groups using government funding to teach schoolchildren myths about abstinance, birth control methods and aids.......

[Pithlet]

47. There is a tendency

for people on DU to attack those of us who are stridently for separation of Church and State. Waaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! :cry:

See how silly that sounds?

Anyway, to get back to the point: I am an atheist. If I ever become hungry or homeless, how is it right that the only way I feed myself and my kids is to force us to observe when we don't believe? How is that not trampling on our rights as American Citizens. Do we lose some of the benefits of freedom of religion just because we can no longer afford to feed ourselves? I don't think so. And if believing so is jumping on religion, well, so be it. I don't think it is. I think what I'm doing is holding religious charities to their actual responsibilities. Helping others, not using their circumstances when they are vulnerable to trample their rights.

[mitchum]

57. But what's wrong with a hungry person having to listen to some jackass...

braying about a magic man in the sky in order to receive the bounty of a grilled cheese sandwich and some warm Jello?

[AngryOldDem]

60. Go to any soup kitchen

and see what the homeless have to eat.

Such a comment is insulting to the many who both provide the food and serve it.

It is also insulting to the many homeless who have a deep religious faith.

I just do not get the attitude here at times...

[Pithlet]

67. I think the poster you responded to

was disparaging the type of "charity" that would force a hungry person to sit through a sermon before being fed. That type of charity deserves nothing but derision and scorn. There's nothing wrong with a charity who wants to offer an optional service for those who are faithful and want to express their gratitude in that manor.

[AngryOldDem]

74. And I make the point

That most homeless may not mind "sitting through a sermon."

You assume that would be the case with any faith-based organization that gets a grant to help the needy. It may surprise you to learn that there are some faith-based groups out there that don't shove their beliefs down others' throats.

Sorry, but I take great offense at anyone who slams another group or an individual who is trying to correct a massive social ill that has come about primarily through government and private sector indifference. I think I understood all too well the poster's intent.

[Ardee]

63. Perhaps you miss my point

though ,in my opinion, that doesn't make YOU silly.....

Main Entry: stri·dent
Pronunciation: 'strI-d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin strident-, stridens, present participle of stridere, stridEre to make a harsh noise
: characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound <a strident voice>; also : commanding attention by a loud or obtrusive quality <strident slogans>
synonym see LOUD, VOCIFEROUS
- stri·dent·ly adverb

Are you sure you want to be "stridently" for anything?

I've heard Atheism described as a religion too you know, with its concomitant stridency of opinion and intolerance of other beliefs, at least in some adherents.......

My sole point, and this is definitely my last word on a silly sidebar of a topic, is simply that ,while there are, in this administration, overweaning tendencies towards religious solutions to social problems, some of which are way over the top, giving 125K to a religious organization that is feeding the hungry is not worthy of criticism, strident or not. The key here is that this article made absolutely no mention of whether or not any religious declarations were made during the feeding of the needy.... This is a knee jerk reaction to a potentially nonexistent problem...and it makes other and more worthy objections diminished.

[Pithlet]

66. Are you sure you want to be pretentious?

Because that is what I call anyone who shoves dictionary definitions at others on a message board. Patronizing is another one. And spare me the definitions. I know what those words mean, too.

Giving 125k to a religious organization that forces members to practice the religion before they receive charity is worthy of criticism. All kinds of criticism. Whatever-adjective-from-whatever-dictionary-you-want-to-use kind of criticism. I stated in the beginning that I had no problem with the government giving money to a religious charity that wants to do good and help people, and not use the charity as a carrot on a stick.

[Ardee]

70. Speaking of religion

You are both preachy and rude, Im walking out of your church now....go learn some manners kid.

Oh yeah, instead of admiring yourself in that mirror, show me where that article ever said this:

Giving 125k to a religious organization that forces members to practice the religion before they receive charity is worthy of criticism.

now re-read sentence one and two...bye, we will never meet again on this bumpy road of life...Im soooo glad.

[Pithlet]

72. It didn't say that

I never said it said that in the article. YOU were the one who responded to my criticism of church charities who coerce the people they use, and commented that everyone here wants to jump on religion. I was responding to your post, not anything in the article.

And you were the one who was rude. I was responding in kind.

[Pithlet]

73. Oh, and calling someone "preachy and rude"

after you've asked them whether they've ever been hungry or homeless is priceless.

[Anakin Skywalker]

61. I Can See it.

"You want food? You gotta LISTEN to some moral preachings FIRST!" :) Heh heh.

[Pithlet]

68. I know

and I can't believe there are those on DU who are defending that type of "charity". And that criticizing such "charity" is an attack on the faithful.

[AllegroRondo]

6. Read Bible + Accept Jesus = Food

[spinbaby]

16. Not necessarily

Because some religious groups are overbearing doesn't mean they all are. In our area (southwestern PA), there are many churches that quietly do good works and feed people without imposing beliefs on them.

[AllegroRondo]

17. Sorry, it was a TV reference.

this line came from a South Park episode. I'm sure it went over everyones head.

[bluestateguy]

7. Where do the Muslim, Pagan, Buddhist and Scientology groups sign up?

Because once you opne the purse to "faith based" organizations, you have to be open to funding them all, without playing favorites based on religions. I want to see the look on the fundies faces when they realize that Muslim and Pagan groups can also get funding.

[wtmusic]

8. My occult group has many low-income members

:evilgrin:

[VegasWolf]

29. I wonder if the Satanists can apply too? n/t

[The Straight Story]

12. Do they have groups that do this?

If so, they should sign up. Not to prove a point to group X/Y/Z but to better be able to help folks. The money is there, if they can grab it and help the people in the area I am sure the people would appreciate it (and I am sure some people getting foodstamps don't care that it comes from *).

[Ilsa]

59. Every single non-christian group that has applied for some form

of faith-based initiative funding has been turned down, according to what I heard on Now with Bill Moyers (I think it was Now. Maybe it was Frontline). There isn't any way any of those bozos in Washington are going to let a nonChristian group get their hands on tax money. There really needs to be a public audit on this.

[elehhhhna]

10. This is BULLSHIT: The $$$'s For OUTREACH, not food

2 million bucks to tell people that foodstamps exist? Just run a free psa on network TV. I smell a payoff. Who gets foodstamp outreach dollars next? Walmart? Their employees qualify.

This is a bullshit use of government money. 2 million bucks would feed a lot of people.

[yellowcanine]

14. I suspect this is the Food Stamp and Nutrition Education Program

It is an educational program designed to teach food stamp recipients how to prepare nutritious meals, shop wisely, even grow their own fruits and vegetables, in some cases. It actually makes more sense than just buying food for people. Along the lines of "teach a man to fish....."

[elehhhhna]

21. okay i'll take a breather then.

[MichiganVote]

58. Great idea. Um...exactly where are they going to grow the garden?

Low income people live in apartments, trailers or are doubled up with other families usually in similar lousy conditions. Since most of the world's hungry are children, I'm sure they'll benefit from the cooking lessons.

[sandnsea]

13. I'm confused

These are the people who vote against government programs, until they want money from those programs???

:argh:

[DinahMoeHum]

15. Yep, whatta buncha welfare cheats. . .

:evilfrown:

[tsuki]

69. Me too.

[CornField]

18. Did you know that not one non-Christian group has ever been given

funds from the Faith-Based Initiatives Executive Order signed by *?

The only groups who have received funding (and, BTW, no one can tell us exactly how much of our TAX DOLLARS have been distributed through this program) are Christian and interdenominational (Christian -- mix of Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.).

Watch Frontline's "The Jesus Factor" to learn more.

This program is wrong -- not only because I object to faith-based groups using my TAX DOLLARS but because it discriminates against non-faith-based groups. For instance, secular groups are required to abide by equal opportunity employment policies while faith-based groups are free to not hire homosexuals because of their religious beliefs.

[elemnopee]

24. That is actually not true

Several non-religous and interfaith organizations have recieved funding.

Anyone can apply for the funds, the act only changed the law regarding disbursement. Under the new law, because an organization is religous does not mean they are automatically disqualified from recieving grants for social programs.

Bush overemphaiszes the faith aspect to appease fundies. Kerry and Clinton both supported this program.

I still think it completely violates the separation of church and state.

[CornField]

26. I'm sorry, but you are welcome to go listen to the program yourself

I'm going to paraphrase, but it says: "Although other religious groups have applied for funding, the only groups to have been approved are Christian and interfaith."

It is true that anyone can apply for the funds. The disbursement is what is in question here -- and why no one can provide the public with an adequate count of what has been disbursed.

Non-Religious groups are subject to secular laws. Religious groups are not (based on the executive order signed by *). The program, then provides an hand-up to any religious based group. (It provides them an advantage which is not provided to non-religious groups.)

[elemnopee]

35. I have seen the program

"no one can provide the public with an adequate count of what has been disbursed"

How is it that you can assume the documentary, which I have seen and is at least two years old, has it correct. I believe the producers were referring to a survey conducted by one departments faith based initiatives office I beleieve. (Each department has its own office from what I understand)

You make a great point about religous groups having a hand up, by side stepping federal hiring laws and restrictions...its something to think about.

Its not that I support faith based intitiatives, I just know that non-Christian and interfaith groups have recieved money, but I have no doubt (conservative) Christian groups are given preferential treatment.

[athenap]

27. I wonder, though...

...did any non-Christian groups apply or go through the paperwork to get any of this funding?

Plus, there are some significant good works done by Christian charities who comply with the former guidelines of separating religion and government--Catholic Charities, Inc. has been working for a long time within the guidelines of government before the whole faith-based thing came about. CCI keeps the stuff they do with government money separate from churchy stuff.

[Anakin Skywalker]

62. Good Point!

Your last sentence is one of the several reasons this grates me.

[VegasWolf]

19. Leaves more money for tithes for the jet-black haired preachers.n/t

[noonwitch]

20. Only a couple look like "Faith-based" agencies

In Detroit, we have "faith based" agencies who have been doing charity work with welfare clients for a while, with some success. The church's are in the communities, the state offices are not necessarily there. Most of Detroit's poor have no reliable transportation, and the city's bus system is a mess.

Most churches of all denominations and theologies participate in some type of food bank program. I remember taking a client to a fundie church one time for some free food. They tried to get her to participate in their services, tried to get her to send her kids to Sunday School, but still gave her the food when she refused. They even helped us carry it to the car, and they gave her a ton of food, and some clothes and toys for the kids. Her comment afterwards was "You gotta love those nice christians". And they were all very nice christians who wanted to make a difference in the world.

Focus: Hope, one of Detroit's most successful church-public partnerships was founded by a catholic priest and one of his parishioners after the 67 riots. They administer the USDA subsidy giveaway (government cheese) for the county, and have been doing so for years. They do an excellent job of it, and also have people to instruct the recipients on recipes to make the most of the supplemental food, and how to use it in conjunction with the food stamp program to make healthy meals for a family. There's no way the government could do this as well as this agency does.

As long as the government contracts with these agencies ensures that receiving the benefits is not contigent upon listening to their sermons, or attending religious programs, I don't have a problem with it. But the agency should be able to inform people of their religious beliefs and have literature about their church or temple available for those who want it, as long as there is no mandatory participation requirement.

[Just Me]

23. Yeah. I noticed that, too.

Nevertheless,...federal funding tied into any religious organization (even the Interfaith Alliance which I sincerely adore) is simply crossing the line and too vulnerable to abusive competition and favor.

[AngryOldDem]

55. I don't think so

As Noonwitch so articulately stated, these groups are the most in touch with the community that needs the help, and thus the money for food stamps will probably be spent most effectively through such groups.

There are conditions that can be put on such groups to maintain the separation of church and state. Also, anything will be a great improvement over the food stamp system that is in place now.

[gumby]

30. This is a "strategic initiative."

Faith-based initiatives are a nice sounding cover for the real agenda of destroying all secular, government funded services.

Barbara Ehrenreich says it well:

Of course, Bush's faith-based social welfare strategy only accelerates the downward spiral toward theocracy. Not only do the right-leaning evangelical churches offer their own, shamelessly proselytizing social services; not only do they attack candidates who favor expanded public services--but they stand to gain public money by doing so. It is this dangerous positive feedback loop, and not any new spiritual or moral dimension of American life, that the Democrats have failed to comprehend: The evangelical church-based welfare system is being fed by the deliberate destruction of the secular welfare state.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20041129&s=ehrenreich

[not fooled]

45. Faith-based initiatives are a nice sounding cover for the real agenda of d

Yep, that's it: the camel's nose under the tent. This is just the start, folks. The goal is to dismantle ALL govt social programs. Got that X-mas spirit goin' BIG TIME!!!

By the way, just read Dickens to find out how it all ends.

[quaoar]

49. Or Sinclair Lewis

[MadHound]

31. I real tempted to perform the following test.

Start a pagan based charity group, and after it is established, see if I can get it some of that faith based initiative money.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that I won't get the time of day.

[VegasWolf]

32. Better, start a Satan based charity group. n/t

[Megahurtz]

33. it's easy for anyone to become a "minister"

we're going to see abuse of this one, big time.

Then, as usual, the money will never get to the people who really need it most. :(

[VegasWolf]

38. You are correct, in fact, I'm Reverend Vegas! Got my minister's

credentials on line. Took about 5 minutes. I can legally
marry people in all 50 states and six territories! Any
religious leaning welcome including atheism, paganism, satanism,
and all the thousand varieties of Christendom. I am thinking
about starting the First Atheist Church of Green Valley. I hear
that IRS rules say that only 10% of the money one collects for
charity actually has to go to the charity. Leaves a nice profitable
tax exempt overhead all perfectly legal.

[Just Me]

41. Wow. Maybe I should get in on the goods.

:evilgrin:

Seriously, there are a helluva lot of "PhDs" in my territory.

Those "PhDs" certainly capitalize off of peoples' vulnerabilities.

[VegasWolf]

43. Just Google the Universal Life Church. They will even sell you

a ministry-in-a-box for a thousand dollars. Welcome
aboard Reverend.

[Just Me]

52. Loan me a grand. I'll be a great Rev. Just Me. Fabulous investment!

:bounce:

[VegasWolf]

53. You don't need a grand. You can probably find some bibles and

holy water laying around a second hand stores. A used
black dress might make a nice robe too. Think outside
the box. The certificate is free.

[Megahurtz]

46. LOL!!!

It is ridiculously true.

What a riot!!! :evilgrin:

And what a joke.

[RubyDuby in GA]

34. Wonder how these fundies like being the new "welfare queens"

I thought republicans didn't believe in such social programs.

[Anakin Skywalker]

64. They Like it Just Fine!

They reek of hypocrisies and double-standards but their thick elephant skin prevents them from evaluating criticism.

[karlrschneider]

48. Getting food to hungry folks is fine, but why add another layer of bureau-

cracy? The people who have handled this program for years are already in place and have the apparatus to administer it...why more intermediaries? And anyone who thinks these outfits won't figure out a way to make a profit somehow, somewhere along the line is a hopeless Pollyanna. :eyes:

[realFedUp]

50. That's a lot of money for Kool-Aid

[Sara Beverley]

54. From "welfare queens" to "welfare pastors"

I can tell you how this is going to turn out. If you haven't paid your tithes, you won't get food stamps.

[Anakin Skywalker]

65. Congratulations, Sara Beverley!

with this post, you've just joined the PRESTIGIOUS 700 CLUB! I am threading it myself and am thinking about stopping at 699. In fact, I will be polling you people shortly to get advice.

On edit: Nevermind. I lost count of my own posts. It is now 702 :( I had thought about getting another name just so I won't enter 700 territory. Too late now. :(

Hey, I will just have to post a lot to get too 800. Yeah! That's it! That's my ticket out.

[ally_sc]

56. no more seperation of church and state??

ugh...it is coming and there is nothing but to start raising cain..beofe 2008 there will be so many riots...it is beginning to start.

[SoCalDem]

71. So...is there a "faith-based litmus test" for need, now?

This sucks on so many levels.. At least with a governmental agency handling needy clients, they could expect even-handed treatment..

This bunch has re-introduced that sour look...the look down the nose..the extra shame into being poor.

I have NO problem with people seeking aid and comfort from their church, but for people who happen to be non-churchgoers to have to kowtow to some snooty do-gooder who's going to "decide" whether or not they are "worthy" of help... that pisses me off

[Cheswick2.0]

75. great...and where are the atheists?

Out protesting a Nativity display.

[AngryOldDem]

77. Yeppers.

[Massachusetts]

76. Why is OUR $$$$$$

going to these "A" holes to distribute?:wtf: :mad: :mad: :mad: THEIR AGENDAS ARE NOT THE COLLECTIVE AGENDA OF OUR NATION.

[AngryOldDem]

78. The collective agenda of the nation

Appears to be to turn a blind eye to the needs of thousands of needy men, women, and children. Oftentimes, it falls to religious organizations to do the work in this area. They do it without a grudge, they do it without any expectation of recompense, financial or otherwise. They do it because it's the thing to do.

If you all have such heartburn with religious groups following what they are told to do by Christ -- help the less fortunate -- there is nothing out there stopping you from shutting down your computers, getting off your asses and forming your own groups to help. But it would mean putting your own agendas aside and making some sacrifices, such as time and money. But the groups already in existence will most certainly welcome the extra hand. The fact of the matter is, these groups have a much better clue as to what the real needs are, which means money COULD be spent that much more wisely. Hell, local governments in my area that deal with food stamps have no idea what people's true needs are, because the bureaucracy is so thick they handle everyone with the same cookie-cutter solution: You're working? Your food stamps get cut in half. No matter how much you're making, or how many mouths you have to feed. It is insane, it is infuriating.

No one has ever said that this will give groups the green light to shove their dogmas down other people's throats. In fact, I can think of an excellent way that federal funds could be used by a faith-based group to help the needy, based on my example above, but why share it? Minds are already made up. Mention "religion" around here and you hear minds slamming shut like metal doors to a dungeon.

Oh one more thing...thanks for calling me an asshole. I work with a religious-based group that serves the needy. And no, we don't force them to hear a sermon before they eat, nor do we shove Bibles in their faces and make them memorize five Scripture verses before bedime. They're hungry. So we feed them. Novel concept, eh? Please give us more credit than this.