Talk about anything and everything not related to this site or the Dreamcast, such as news stories, political discussion, or anything else. If there's not a forum for it, it belongs in here. Also, be warned that personal insults, threats, and spamming will not be tolerated.
Updated, 4:14 p.m. | To settle a longstanding suit alleging that the Salvation Army preached Christianity in the course of its government-financed social services work, an agreement has been reached to ensure that it does not do so, the New York Civil Liberties Union announced Wednesday.
The settlement, approved by a federal judge in Manhattan, requires the numerous city, state and federal agencies named in the suit, including the Administration for Children’s Services and the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, to set up monitoring systems to make sure that the Salvation Army does not violate church-state separation in its publicly financed dealings with clients.
The Salvation Army’s practices cited included a confirmation-like ceremony at its temple on West 14th Street for 9-year-olds in its city-financed foster care program in which each child was handed a Bible and prayed over, as well as prayers offered with snacks in a day care program. Donna Lieberman, executive director of the civil liberties union, said the Salvation Army never disputed the allegations.
“This agreement protects the religious freedom of all New Yorkers who rely on faith-based organizations for crucial government-funded social services,†she said in a statement. “No one should be subject to proselytizing because they need foster care, adoption, child care or H.I.V. services.â€
The Salvation Army did not return a call seeking comment.
-Emphasis mine-
What do you guys think? Should the Salvation Army be required to uphold non proselytizing policies, while receiving goverment funded grants to help people at least?
Stryfe wrote:
What do you guys think? Should the Salvation Army be required to uphold non proselytizing policies, while receiving goverment funded grants to help people at least?
Stryfe wrote:
What do you guys think? Should the Salvation Army be required to uphold non proselytizing policies, while receiving goverment funded grants to help people at least?
Stryfe wrote:Should the Salvation Army be required to uphold non proselytizing policies, while receiving goverment funded grants to help people at least?
Of course. When they engage in government-funded social work, they are acting on behalf of the government, and so need to respect the same fundamental rules and laws that a government agency would in the course of doing that work. To put it another way, the government isn't allowed to ignore the First Amendment just because the grunt work is outsourced.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
I think a lot of it needs to be better money management so that they don't have to sacrifice their mission to receive extra money for good works. IE, government funding going specifically to feeding hungry but not to rehabilitation type programs which would be allowed to be preachy.
A number of long-time institutions have recently been slammed by these sorts of issues, I'm sure you all remember the AA problems from a few years ago.
"When you post fewer lines of text than your signature, consider not posting at all." - A Wise Man
Quzar wrote:I think a lot of it needs to be better money management so that they don't have to sacrifice their mission to receive extra money for good works. IE, government funding going specifically to feeding hungry but not to rehabilitation type programs which would be allowed to be preachy.
The underlying problem in this case appears to be that the current management of the Salvation Army (or at least the NYC branch) doesn't want their social work to be separated from their preachy work. Apparently they had been following the rules just fine, and then somebody came in and decided to "reclaim the ecclesiastical turf". Although the beginning of the article only mentions the New York Civil Liberties Union, the lawsuit was actually brought by existing employees of the Salvation Army's social programs, who were being subjected to religious loyalty tests.
A number of long-time institutions have recently been slammed by these sorts of issues, I'm sure you all remember the AA problems from a few years ago.
Got a link? I'd be interested in reading about that (though I suppose I can guess the broad outline of the problem).
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
A number of long-time institutions have recently been slammed by these sorts of issues, I'm sure you all remember the AA problems from a few years ago.
Got a link? I'd be interested in reading about that (though I suppose I can guess the broad outline of the problem).
I searched and searched because I know I read about it here, but can't find it. Basically someone was sentenced to mandatory AA and fought it because it's a religious program and he was offered no alternative. Here's what I could find on it:
It's not universal across the country, but it's been fairly consistent whenever the issue has arisen. In the more recent one, a parole officer who made AA a condition of a Buddhist's parole was sued and in a '96 case a judge who imposed AA as part of a sentence was sued.
"When you post fewer lines of text than your signature, consider not posting at all." - A Wise Man
Stryfe wrote:
What do you guys think? Should the Salvation Army be required to uphold non proselytizing policies, while receiving goverment funded grants to help people at least?
Yes.
I searched and searched because I know I read about it here, but can't find it. Basically someone was sentenced to mandatory AA and fought it because it's a religious program and he was offered no alternative. Here's what I could find on it:
I agree with this too. I think _A programs are silly, they help some, but really the basic idea seems somewhat flawed "You're powerless over drugs, now be powerless to god instead." i know it goes much deeper than that, but that seems to be the basic pretense.
http://tofuheavyindustries.com
Mac Dream Tool / Mac Dream Tool Services (released Sept. 2019)
Creator of Various awesome Video Games
"You don't have to be forgiven. Clint Eastwood taught us that."
I.M. Weasel wrote:I agree with this too. I think _A programs are silly, they help some, but really the basic idea seems somewhat flawed "You're powerless over drugs, now be powerless to god instead." i know it goes much deeper than that, but that seems to be the basic pretense.
It's the easiest way to stop an addiction, become addicted to something else. I've known way more people who were addicts and did a 180 to religious zealotry than who have simply transitioned into a 'normal' life. I wonder if any of the alternatives work on the exact opposite principle 'you are stronger than the booze! you are the key to your own destiny!' etc. I know it's common in 'self-help' but never heard of it in a structured way.
"When you post fewer lines of text than your signature, consider not posting at all." - A Wise Man
A really good program for addiction I like is called rational recovery. It cuts all the god bs out of it and powerless bs out of it and actually has a non retarded view of addiction.
SCO=SCUM=M$=SCO it keeps repeating
i'm a randite
DYTDMFBSB?
There must have been some mistake
I'm not the one who should be saved
My divinity has been denied
Mary and me were both fucked by God
I.M. Weasel wrote:
I agree with this too. I think _A programs are silly, they help some, but really the basic idea seems somewhat flawed "You're powerless over drugs, now be powerless to god instead." i know it goes much deeper than that, but that seems to be the basic pretense.
No, AA is not that at all. You admit that your powerless to drugs(ie that you cant stop using), and everything your powerless against ie the weather, work, heart break, etc you give up control over to a higher power. The higher power can be the group, god, or even Epic Beard Man.
I.M. Weasel wrote:
I agree with this too. I think _A programs are silly, they help some, but really the basic idea seems somewhat flawed "You're powerless over drugs, now be powerless to god instead." i know it goes much deeper than that, but that seems to be the basic pretense.
No, AA is not that at all. You admit that your powerless to drugs(ie that you cant stop using), and everything your powerless against ie the weather, work, heart break, etc you give up control over to a higher power. The higher power can be the group, god, or even Epic Beard Man.
The "higher power" is referred to explicitly as "God" in various places in AA literature, is supposed to be who/what removes your character flaws, and is more generally described in such a way as to suggest a single, conscious moral authority with the ability to control your life for your own good once you simply submit to it. This is the sort of thing that tends to seem perfectly neutral/generic to followers of the Abrahamic religions, because its assumptions are essentially consistent with that view. For others, accepting those assumptions is essentially tantamount to religious conversion.
This is all pretty much crystallized in the last two steps:
Alcoholics Anonymous wrote:11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
(emphasis added)
That's not recognizing your lack of control over the weather, it's organizing your life around submission to "His will".
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
