Political post. If this isn't your thing, feel free to ignore it.

[mijan]

I'd hoped that finally removing the Religious Right's puppets from the White House would mean that bullshit like the "Faith-Based Initiatives" program would finally be eliminated.

But no.

"Obama to Unveil New Faith-Based Office."

Sure, the office was already there, so Obama didn't make it up himself... but doesn't anyone see the UNCONSTITUTIONAL bent to this thing?  Obama shouldn't be "revising" or "changing" this office.  He should be ELIMINATING it.

Our government has no business giving funds to ANY faith-based initiatives.  Why not, you may ask, if they make sure they give out the money fairly to initiatives based on all religions?  The answer is simple:  Because they WON'T.

Try creating a Pagan-based charity and requesting funds.  It would be rejected faster than a pork chop at an orthodox Jew convention.

If a charity wants federal funds, then it needs to dissociate itself from any religious group, and it needs to ensure that people who come to the charity for help aren't pressured to convert, and aren't required to adhere to a specific religious philosophy. 

If a charity wants to preach, that's FINE... as long as they aren't using taxpayer dollars to support it.

Comments

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Try creating a Pagan-based charity and requesting funds.

I think we ought to, actually.

[book-rapport.livejournal.com]

omg I JUST posted a comment on this story on CNN's ticker under the name "Kelly." I'm a die-hard atheist and I honestly thought Obama would put an end to this nonsense.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I think that would be amazing... and I'd be up for the challenge. I seriously think that people of pagan faiths have too little support in a world that wants to Bible-bash them constantly, and that we, as Pagans, should exercise our inherent abilities to help people.

I'm also curious - call it "testing the system" - to see if a Pagan group *could* get approved for funds through the system that supports faith-based initiatives.

What do you think?

[cluegirl.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'd like to see all churches required to pay taxes on their income and properties. I see no good reason at all why these multi-million dollar enterprises should be able to skive off their taxes when anyone else would be in foreclosure for trying it.

If they want to claim charitable donations take up most of their income yearly, and the rest goes to maintenance, then fine; let them prove that with the reciepts just like I have to do. *Is still venomous over LDS bankrolling Prop8.*

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I *wanted* to post, but it said that comments were closed for that article. How'd you manage to post?

I'm not an atheist, but I'm an absolute secularist when it comes to government, and can't stand it when people substitute religion for reason.

[treewishes.livejournal.com]

He actually came out against it during the campaign, but then the lobbyists went to work and he reversed himself. Gah.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I know, I know. I mean, *some* churches really do barely manage to pay the rent or mortgage and the bills to keep the building functional, but there are some that are filthy-stinkin' rich... and they don't pay a cent in taxes. It's disgusting. Those megachurches that are rich and plush... not a cent paid in taxes. SO irritating! They should absolutely have to have their receipts and finances reviewed.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I KNOW. Why, oh why, is he caving in like this?

[anthimaeria.livejournal.com]

AGREED. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I think we ought to do it for a few reasons:
1. Paganism is perceived as a religion of the selfish and self-centered, when it is understood to be a religion at all. Openly Pagan charity work is both a true expression of the urge on the part of Pagans to do good work and create good karma (or to care for the tribe, or provide hospitality, or work towards an open and generous relationship with the world around us, or whatever, varying faith by faith within the Pagan family), and a good PR move.
2. I'm suspicious of anything that doesn't get done because we already know how it will turn out. It's entirely possible that a Pagan group would be turned away, exactly as you describe. It's also possible that we'd get fair and even treatment, and change people's minds about the disregard in which Paganism is held. I suspect it would be the first, but I'd like to hold open the possibility that it could be the second, because frankly, that's a world I'd rather live in. At this point, I'll bet you dollars to donuts (never mind that donuts are trading higher on the international markets these days) that no Pagan group has ever applied for funding.
3. If it does fail, it provides some leverage to topple the office, which many of us over here in the non-dominant religions would like to see go away anyway.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

1. I wholeheartedly agree with you, obviously on the fact that it's just a good thing to do (ie. karma and kindness and all that), but especially on the Good PR part.

2. I also would try to keep an open mind and HOPE that the proposal would be treated fairly, but the realistic skeptic in me can't let myself get too excited about the possibility.

3. YESSSSSSSS!

So... shall we brainstorm ideas? Present it at Gaea Community? Discuss it at Wild Hare? Take real action and create something out of it?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Our church currently is running on a budget of just short of $30K a year. It's the biggest budget we've ever had, and an overwhelming proportion just goes to keeping a roof over our heads and paying the Sunday School teachers and other childcare people. None of the people doing "ministry" get paid a red cent. We buy our own candles, you know?

Anything small like us would die if we had to pay income tax, leaving no organizations to compete in the marketplace of ideas with the mega-churches. I think that's a bad plan right now.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

They tossed it out the door when the religious nuts started getting testy.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I think it would need to be a separate endeavor, although both GC and WH do charity work. Not that I have time to really work on such a thing... (But I do have some ideas.)

Bread and Circuses

[sgt-majorette.livejournal.com]

Try creating a Pagan-based charity and requesting funds. It would be rejected...

Of course it will. And then the Pagans will hit back. Every nutroll who thinks God talks to them will jump in. I might. Lord(Lady?) knows I have nothing better to do. Maybe I'll revive the Mars Ultor cult from high school.

There will be huge ideological fistfights and nobody will get any money, thus providing a diversion so that meaningful work can get done in the background.

Give Congress something stupid to argue about, so they don't waste time and resources with partisan bickering about important things.

[book-rapport.livejournal.com]

hmm, I dunno, but it said I'd have to wait for my comment to show up because the comments are moderated. FYI, I stole some of this entry and made a facebook post about it-- dunno if you have facebook, but if you do I'll add you as a friend so you can see my blatant stealing of this!! :)

Here's the comment I posted on the story (that's 'awaiting moderation'):

This is ridiculous. The Faith-Based Office should be dissolved immediately. There is a separation between church and state for a reason, and I find it hard to believe that these religious organizations aren't benefiting by the federal government highlighting the charity of their choice. And what about when charities cross into "secular" matters, like anti-abortion clinics? Obama should revamp this office into being the Charity Outreach office and have non-religious oversight. I am an atheist and I am sick and tired of Washington becoming encumbered with religious dogma and ideology. I voted for Obama because I thought he represented a break from Bush's tired theism…

[sgt-majorette.livejournal.com]

Catholic churches in the "inner city" are closing right and left; like the big cities vs. the state, our churches are getting back less than they contribute to the Archdiocese. The old folks who are still left resist the collection plate, even under the falling masonry. They figure if they give their money to the establishment, it'll just go to paying off victims of priest-pedophiles. Let the building fall down, put the priests in jail: wherever two or three are gathered in my name, after all...

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

My concern here is not even so much that smaller institutions would fail, but that the largest and scammiest would survive, leaving a world of religious Wal-Marts and nothing else. While in my heart of hearts, I might hope that this would lead to a resurgence of religion that intersected more sanely with the material world, I believe it's more likely to empower the giants further, as they become more and more the obvious, easy choice for a "faithful" community. It's a very off-putting concept.

Re: Bread and Circuses

[mijan.livejournal.com]

And you'd suggest instead that I sit back and just accept it when my government uses my tax dollars to preferentially fund religious organizations?

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Doesn't it just feel like a no-win situation?

I hate that feeling.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I think that's why she was suggesting that churches should be subject to REVIEW for taxes. She's talking about the ones that turn an actual PROFIT, which many of the megachurches do. When you've got pastors flying Lear jets, but they never pay a penny in taxes, that deserves a second look.

Perhaps require a review of churches that are taking in more than $200K per year. And then, if all of THAT money is legitimately going to pay to keep the church itself afloat, covering bills and rent, then they don't get taxed. However, if the money is clearly turning a profit, and the pastor is making a mint, then taxes could apply. The church should be TRULY non-profit in order to stay tax-free.

Does that sound more fair?

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I know that WH and GC both work with Harvesters, but I don't if they're involved in other programs, or have any programs that they run by themselves.

I'd love to hear your ideas. Not that I want to jump up and start something yesterday, but just want to think ahead a bit.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. It's good because it focuses on the people who really do seem to be abusing the system. It's bad because it puts the government into the position of having to decide what is and is not a legitimate church expense. I'd be a little nervous about that, personally.

From another angle: I do sometimes wonder what donors are thinking when they give their money to the pastor with the private plane, but hey, if people want to give their money to other people, why should we stop them? Now, it's possible that these donors are being duped about where their money is going, which I do think ought to be squashed by the full force of the law, because that's fraud. I don't know how really hierarchical faiths do it, but in the UUA, churches are required to make their budgets accessible to anyone who asks. If you give money to one of ours, you ought to be able to see exactly what it's going to. I think it's the donor's job to look into that when they give, at least when they're giving more than a fiver in the collection plate.

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Neither has any programs that they run by themselves that are direct charitable ventures. Both work with other organizations by collecting money or stuff that is given to the other org, or by gathering a volunteer pool and doing something like what WH is doing with Harvesters in a couple of weeks.

As far as I am aware, that's the usual model for a pagan organization that wants to do charitable work. Pagan Pride Day works the same way: we choose a charity, we get stuff and money, and then we give it to the charity. Apparently, we like to do things in a behind-the-scenes way, partially out of fear that our help will be refused because of who we are. And, in fact, PPD did have an organization refuse a large donation a few years ago, because that org didn't want their name to be associated with pagans. As far as I know, though, everybody else that the KC group has tried to donate to has been more than happy to have our help.

We should gather a group of interested people and talk about the starting of our own thing.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Really? Do you have any idea which organization refused the donation? If a group wants so desperately to avoid association from pagans, even to go so far as to refuse our money, I want to make sure they never get ANY of my money.

I really think we ought to do something as a group. In times like these, more and more people need help, so why not contribute something to those in need?

Here's a pagan-ish idea: Starting a community garden that has programs to teach people how to plant their own vegetables to supplement their groceries. Too many people in financial difficulty don't eat well. Teaching people to garden organically helps them to eat better, and gives them respect for the earth that produces their food. I wonder what we'd have to do to find a suitable plot of land...

Anyway, that's just one idea.

Want to have a casual brainstorming session at the next Wild Hare meeting? Just to see where it goes?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

I can't remember who it was, honestly. ravenspirit70 would probably know.

Also, I vote that we don't hijack the Wild Hare meeting about it. WH has enough of its own business to do. Let's schedule some other time, perhaps over food.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Ooooh... "over food" is the best way to do anything.

And yeah, you're right - I don't intend to hijack the meeting. I was more thinking that when a meeting is over, and if we're at someone's house where they don't have children and people are up for munchies and brainstorming after the actual meeting... that's what I was thinking.

I'd be willing to serve up a brainstormers' dinner sometime, or we could all go out for edibles. When do you think would be a good time/day/month? I know everyone has different schedules, and different times of year are busier for different people.

Re: Bread and Circuses

[sgt-majorette.livejournal.com]

No, no, no! I suggest that we let a few tax pennies go into tossing a bone to the dogs and letting them fight over it.

What I'm saying is that in this political climate, constitutional challenges and counterchallenges will so efficiently stall the process that nobody will get any funding.

Did you know that your tax dollars have already been committed to bailout money for Citibank, which is paying the Mets for naming rights to their new ballpark?

Re: Bread and Circuses

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know about the Citibank thing. The fine print (and not-so-fine print) of this bailout is infuriating. And the shit that the banks are doing with our money... GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

But yeah, I understand what you're saying. *sigh*

[annulvapore.livejournal.com]

It would be rejected faster than a pork chop at an orthodox Jew convention.



WHAT DO YOU KNOW FROM FUNNY

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Huh?

[annulvapore.livejournal.com]

Clearly you have never seen Coming To America.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

Nope.

[annulvapore.livejournal.com]

It's an Eddie Murphy movie. The character in the above picture is this cliche Jewish guy who tells a joke about soup:

"So I order a soup and the waitress brings the soup, and I look at her and I say 'Hey, try the soup!' She looks at me all confused and I am like 'Hey, try the soup!' She asks me, 'Is it too hot? Is it too cold?' I say, 'No, no, no, just try the soup!' So, she says 'Okay, I'll try the soup.' ... 'where's the spoon?'"

...

"...AH HAAAAAAA!" (with the finger raise, as shown in the picture)

*his friends look nonplussed*

In response to the joke failing: ...WHAT DO YOU KNOW FROM FUNNY

but it's relevant to the above because Jewish, food, etc. =P

but it's relevant to the above because Jewish, food

[sgt-majorette.livejournal.com]

...and also because the old Jewish guy is Eddie Murphy, too.

Re: but it's relevant to the above because Jewish, food

[annulvapore.livejournal.com]

I am aware of this. =P

[yaycoffee.livejournal.com]

Yes. I was going to say exactly this. Paying taxes would kill most of the churches I've been a part of in my adulthood.

[yaycoffee.livejournal.com]

I agree. Totally.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I know. It's harder than one might think it is to draw the line between the churches that abuse their tax-exempt status and the ones that barely meet their operating requirements. It's just that the ones who DO abuse it... it just infuriates me!

*sigh*