Florida official tells Christian charity to choose between Jesus and cheese (employment, regular)
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.
I have no clue what you are ranting about. Nobody has argued that a group can't force anything on the participants. I noted that very early on.
Where we disagree is with your assumption that happened here devoid of any facts.
You're only telling half the rule. Yes, you are correct about that rule, and yes, this church is not seemingly violating that half of the rule.
However, again, you're only telling half the rule. You're leaving out the part that the church is in fact violating and fully admits to violating.
I'll quote it a 3rd time in this thread:
(b) Organizations that receive direct USDA assistance under any USDA program may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services supported with direct USDA assistance. If an organization conducts such activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services supported with direct assistance from USDA
This church conducts inherently religious activities while (same place and same time) administering the USDA program. That's the violation.
You're only telling half the rule. Yes, you are correct about that rule, and yes, this church is not seemingly violating that half of the rule.
However, again, you're only telling half the rule. You're leaving out the part that the church is in fact violating and fully admits to violating.
I'll quote it a 3rd time in this thread:
(b) Organizations that receive direct USDA assistance under any USDA program may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services supported with direct USDA assistance. If an organization conducts such activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services supported with direct assistance from USDA
This church conducts inherently religious activities while (same place and same time) administering the USDA program. That's the violation.
I'm not leaving that out. We have discussed it over and over. The courts have ruled that organizations do not have to change what they are.
If someone comes in for food and also wants a Bible, they indeed can provide them. They just can't force them to take one to receive the food.
You most certainly did leave it out. In your post you said there is a rule, and that the church was complying with the rule. You left out the second prong of the rule and therefore failed to mention that the church was, in fact, not complying with the rule.
You were lying by omission.
Quote:
We have discussed it over and over. The courts have ruled that organizations do not have to change what they are.
And I never said that they did. They don't have to change what they are. They can still operate as a church (conduct religious activities) when and where they are not actively giving out food to clients of the USDA food program.
Quote:
If someone comes in for food and also wants a Bible, they indeed can provide them. They just can't force them to take one to receive the food.
...and they can't conduct religious activities while handing out the food. This church was conducting worship, engaging in Christian counseling, and proselytizing while handing out the food. That is not allowed even if participation is not a requirement.
( and I think its debatable whether handing out Bibles would be considered a religious activity or not)
Last edited by hammertime33; 09-11-2013 at 10:25 PM..
You most certainly did leave it out. In your post you said there is a rule, and that the church was complying with the rule. You left out the second prong of the rule and therefore failed to mention that the church was, in fact, not complying with the rule.
When the first church pantry I volunteered at started using USDA products it was because they were approached by an offical from the USDA and asked to do it. We had our own thing going at the time. It was presented as a win-win to us for everyone. It allowed them to help those in need at a lower cost, it allowed us to offer a larger variety of items, it ensured us a consistent and reliable source, and the patrons could always count on us having enough. Prior to then, some weeks we could give people enough for a whole week, and some weeks just a couple of meals or a bunch of snack food. Also it expanded our protien to include meat as opposed to just tuna or peanut butter.
Closing that church's food pantry is simply a loss. The old patrons will probably have to travel further if they want help. Otherwise it is back to tuna and peanut butter.
Regardless, if you agree to accept government resources, you must abide by governmental policy.
Further, as Christians, does not God not promise to supply ALL needs? Why then, do some Christians become reliant on the government to provide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
They are allowing their resources to be used by the government to disperse this food in a cost effective manner. It's not a charity. It's a church dispersing government food because it is cost effective.
As I argued earlier, if you prefer that the government open up food banks all over the country, pay wages of the employee's, utilities and rent rather than spend that money on food, go ahead and make that argument.
This seems to be the problem with some. They are willing to allow their bigotry affect benefits for the poor and when the food doesn't reach the poor they will complain about how uncaring people are.
It is charity work, even though it is not a charity by the official definition. The separation of church and state principle needs to be respected. Nothing is preventing the church from dispersing the government food, other than their unwillingness to abide by government policy.
Then why do you keep omitting it? (and thereby falsely claiming this Church is in compliance with the USDA rules)
Do you disagree with me that this second prong to the rule exists?
I agree that they are now claiming this is the rules. My earlier point is how do you rectify the two conflicting statements from the USDA? They say that they do not have to take the pictures down but then someone comes in and tells them they do.
That would show the actions of someone with an agenda. The place can offer Bibles if that is what the people want. Government employee's do stupid things all the time. Just because they do it doesn't make it legal.
MADISON, Wis. – A Tomah High School student has filed a federal lawsuit alleging his art teacher censored his drawing because it featured a cross and a biblical reference...............
................Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.
Editor's note: The Associated Press reported May 20 that the Tomah School District had formally agreed to allow religious expression in student artwork to settle a federal lawsuit. Final settlement details included the district's agreeing to remove any record of two detentions the student received for arguing the policy, to pay attorney fees and to grade the assignment. Attorney David Cortman said the boy got a B+.
It is charity work, even though it is not a charity by the official definition. The separation of church and state principle needs to be respected. Nothing is preventing the church from dispersing the government food, other than their unwillingness to abide by government policy.
The government once had a policy that stated separate but equal. You don't even believe what you say. People should have just accepted that?
"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"
MTAtech nailed it. The state/county employee is misinformed or has his own agenda.
For the life of me, I had the impression that the government cheese program ended in the late 80's.
Regardless, if you agree to accept government resources, you must abide by governmental policy.
We were assured we would not have to alter anything in our building. The debate with the 10 commandments in courthouses was active at the time, so it was asked. We were told we could still conduct our normal business that was not associated with the food pantry. Again, they recruited us, we did not seek them out.
The government always has the option of running the food pantries themselves. Right now, based on minimum wage, that will be $50,000+ minimum a year just to pay the wages of the people handing out food at my one food pantry.
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.
