Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The USDA seems to disagree in their official statements.
The USDA referred to an Executive Order providing equal protection for faith-based organizations. That order guarantees those groups the right to provide assistance without “removing or altering religious art, icons, scriptures or other symbols from these facilities.”
I said they are under the same obligation when it comes to conducting religious activities while administering a government program. A portrait on a wall is not an activity.
Quote:
That they can engage in religious activities so long as the activity is not used to create a barrier to eligible individuals receiving food. ?
Absolutely. And the USDA policy says as much. They can engage in any religious activity they want when THEY ARE NOT administering the government program. They just can't engage in religious activities at the same time and in the same place as their administration of the government program. Administering the government program at the same time and in the same place where religious activities are being conducted inherently creates a barrier.
Quote:
Said the one arguing for discriminating against religious based organizations.
If you have to make things up to defend yourself you have no point. Courts have ruled that church's can not do that and there is no proof it is being done. Nothing outside of your bigotry of those with differing viewpoints than you.
Making things up? Bigotry?
What have I made up, and how am I expressing bigotry? I'm expressing a view that protects Americans from discrimination based on religion and protects their 1st Amendment rights.
I said they are under the same obligation when it comes to conducting religious activities while administering a government program. A portrait on a wall is not an activity.
And yet they were told they had to take it down. Why?
Quote:
Absolutely. And the USDA policy says as much. They can engage in any religious activity they want when THEY ARE NOT administering the government program. They just can't engage in religious activities in the same time and at the same place as their administration of the government program. Administering the government program at the same time and in the same place where religious activities are being conducted inherently creates a barrier.
There is no law against ministering to those who come for the food. There is only a law that stops them from requiring it to get the food. That is even what the administrator said.
If you allow a body to, while it is administering a government program, at the same time and place conduct its religious activities, you are constructively discriminating against and violating the 1st Amendment rights of those who would (or do) seek benefit of that government program but who do not share that body's religious views.
Having a policy that says such a body can administer government programs, but that they must refrain from conducting their religious activities while doing so, is a policy that protects the religious freedom and the 1st Amendment rights of citizens seeking such government programs.
And sure, I do question the wisdom of sub-contacting government services to religious organization. I mean, isn't it the purpose of a religious organization to conduct religious activities? Why then have them do something that, to comply with the 1st Amendment, would require they suspend their religious activities while doing it?
You seem to think the 1st Amendment somehow ensures a religious organization the right to administer a government program and to be able to conduct its religious activities while doing so. It doesn't. If a religious body doesn't think it can administer a government program without actively conducting religious activities, then all it has to do is not choose to administer a government program.
Yes you do or you would have answered my question as to why the official said they had to stop doing something after much prodding you agree that they can do.
Yes you do or you would have answered my question as to why the official said they had to stop doing something after much prodding you agree that they can do.
(Hanging religious pictures)
I didn't really realize you were still hung up on the picture aspect. I was a bit confused why you kept bringing it up, and I was really just glossing over it in your posts.
You must have missed where I addressed that a long time ago. In post 119 I stated that, if the official in fact did insist they take it down (and considering the source I don't necessarily believe that), then he was wrong in doing so. USDA policy clearly allows for it.
(and I also mentioned how hanging a portrait - even of a religious figure - is not a religious act)
I didn't really realize you were still hung up on the picture aspect. I was a bit confused why you kept bringing it up, and I was really just glossing over it in your posts.
You must have missed where I addressed that a long time ago. In post 119 I stated that, if the official in fact did insist they take it down (and considering the source I don't necessarily believe that), then he was wrong in doing so. USDA policy clearly allows for it.
(and I also mentioned how hanging a portrait - even of a religious figure - is not a religious act)
So, based upon what we know, what we had here was an overzealous official that is going to cause at the very least an inconvenience for those looking for some extra help.
So, based upon what we know, what we had here was an overzealous official that is going to cause at the very least an inconvenience for those looking for some extra help.
That's not what I see. I see a church that completely admits to having been in violation of USDA policy concerning conducting religious activities at the same time and in the same place it was administering a government program. I see an official who came to investigate that violation and obviously found it - we know this because in the article the Church proudly admits it and screams its desire to continue violating it. Perhaps the official incorrectly told the Church that to comply with regulations it also had to take down all its religious symbols. However, considering who wrote the article (Todd Starnes), I'm not sure I believe that.
I see the resolution as a win-win. The Church will no longer administer the government program. That's good. The program will no longer be administered in a way that constructively discriminates on the basis of religion and violates the 1st Amendment rights of citizens who don't share this Churches' beliefs and who are seeking assistance under the government program. The USDA will find somebody else to administer it property. Also, the Church is initiating its own private combination food/religious program for the hungry. That's good too.
(what I also see is a horribly biased and purposefully misleading article)
Florida official tells Christian charity to choose between Jesus and cheese
Government money, government rules. If religious institutions don't like the rules, they know what to do.
[big cheese]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
