Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/20/2006 5:56:38 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/20/2006 5:57:06 AM (GMT-5)

OK.  Let's take each one in order.

Pentz:  Some good thoughts that I will think over. I think that I would move to the point that I am uncomfortable with the idea of Faith Based initiatives. BUT, if all non-profit and other social services operated completly on the donations of its donars, there would be many that would not be able to survive or serve as many.

Brandon:  That IS what would happen.  Think of it this way.  In an ideal situation private charity (notice I did NOT say IDEAL WORLD for in that case there would be no need for private charities in the first place.  The un-ideal world is taken for granted here) preferrable to impersonal, inefficient, taxed financed state bureaucracy programs.  To elimate the state TOTALLY from social welfare would, barring uncharacteristic mushrooming of private-sector generosity, leave the underpriviledge with no assistance in overcoming conditions (ghetto upbringing, mental or physical handicaps, lack of educational opportunity) they face through no fault of their own.  Their alienation from the means of improving their plight might push them into socially disruptive behavior (hence some of my issues on the Ontological thread with the humanization of persons through social co-hesion). 

Democratic governments are usually forced to distribute injustices as equally as possible between libertarian and socialistic extremes i.e. through moderately progressive taxation and ameliorative but not overly generous social programs.  In other words, welfare programs and policies have NEVER had as their aim to try to make the poorest citizens as rich as the richest citizens or even as comfortable as middle-class citizens.  Public welfare policies, barring rhetoric, represent an extension of "poor relief,"  the attempt to alleviate joblessness, insufficient income and helpless in order to lift those in need from UNACCEPTABLE POVERTY TO **ACCEPTABLE POVERTY** but not to middle-class comfort.  Government's direct responsibilty goes only so far.  Regardless, this distribution is such  that no economic group feels so consistently mistreated as to contemplate revolution and in most stable democracies the state has inched toward various forms of "welfare capitalism."  That is, tempering the rough edges of the free market with various forms of social assistance.  Countries like the U.S. and Canada have committed themselves to developing a "safety net" of basic food, shelter and health-care support through which no member of society should slip.

Pentz:  A thought that I am wrestling is the idea that as long as someones is being helped does it matter if it is through welfare or a non-prof that recieves some aid from the government? I think the answer is no.

Brandon:  Right.  I don't think it matters where it comes from (someone can be helped from the mafia as far as I'm concerned), however it should be recognized that because of the impersonal nature (this does not mean that they are inherently evil) governmental social programs should be treated as a FALLBACK MECHANISM to be activated ONLY WHEN private initiatives are RECOGNIZIBLY INSUFFICIENT.  In other words, we don't elimanate government programs across the board unless it is clear that private sources are ready and able to meet the basic needs of those whose mental or physical condition preculdes them from caring for themselves.

Pentz:  Another question, and maybe Brandon you know the answer, if Teen Challenge would recive some sort of aid from the government would they have to change their message at all?

Brandon:  Again, this is going to overlapp with some of what I already said as well as what the whole point of programs like Charitable Choice or Faith Based-Initiatives is.  The government's PROPER ROLE is the equal treatment of all faiths, with none having the right, through government control to monopolize public policy and funding for it's point of view.  See, today's "secularized non-sectarian" (the U.S. in particular and Canada in general have an interesting history of how we came to this place) defines ALL public welfare and social programs not only as secular but as governmental through and through.  Anything the government touches and funds and any organization it works within social service or say education delivery MUST BE TREATED AS AN EXTENSION OF THE GOVERNMENT AND IT'S PURPOSES.  If the government and its services have already been defined as secular, then ipso facto, any organization with which the government chooses to cooperate becomes a secular extension of government.  In this case, not only do we have a triumph of the secular over the sacred, but the government OVERWHELMS the non-governmental.

But there are problems with this.

A.  Government has no constitutional right to define it's territory or terrain as "secular" and to outlaw religion from public expression.  That would be a discriminatory imposition of secular sectarianism.

B.  Government ought not to obliterate or undermined that which is non-governmental i.e. families, churches, business enterprises, etc.  The whole point behind faith based initiatives is that whenever government co-operates with non-government organizations, it has EVERY OBLIGATION to recognize and protect the independent integrity of those organizations, INCLUDING THEIR CONFESSIONAL FREEDOM.  The relationship should be one of PARTNERSHIP, NOT COPTATION AND TAKEOVER.  And guess what?  There are NUMEROUS examples where this takes place on all levels of government whether by contract or by some other means with organizations that have their own reason for being and serving people.

The problem in areas such as social services or education has come down to ambiguity because government has presumed to do it all.  See some may say, government should not be in the business of setting up schools or welfare agencies as a DIRECT EXTENSION OF GOVERNMENT PERIOD.  At the least, it ought to partner with independent schools and agencies.  IMHO, government can set up it's own schools and welfare agencies.  But when it does it does not give them an advantage or priviledge that is DENIED to independent schools and social organizations.  Thus, when government acts to provide for the public welfare by determining that a certain class or sector of eligible citizens should recieve certain services?  It ought to proceed in a way that takes FULLY INTO ACCOUNT the organizations that are already offering services.  If it chooses to partner with such organizations all such eligible recipients IT WILL DO JUSTICE ONLY WHEN IT PRESERVES THE FULL INTEGRITY OF ALL PARTIES.

That is to say, that must establish ITS OWN general qualifications, conditions and purposes for the service it mandates and funds, but justice also requires that it not discriminate against any qualified nongovernment organization because it is religious or non-governmental.  The question of the organization's secular or non-secular view is simply irrelevant.  The question from the government side is when it cooperates with non-government organizations is whether such organizations can demonstrate a capability of serving those who are eligible for the service.  That is, can it do the job.  And let's remember this, at this juncture.  Not every person will be able to serve every eligible person nor will every eligible person want to recieve his or her benefits indiscriminately from every service provider.  The government's general or universal public purpose will best be fulfilled through a partnership with a DIVERSITY of providers that can, in a variety of ways and from a variety of viewpoints, reach all the different kinds of eligible recipients.