|
Attn: VivianC | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| I believe I answered that... |
by esbita |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
...with my post on private aid organization staff often wearing multiple hats/working part time. I did not see BloodyViking's reply until now.
I think that the assumption that there will be people hired specifically for a given aid activity is a cop-out argument, and shows a lot of ignorance on how private aid organizations are run, especially in small towns.
In the small town where my parents attend church, our parish runs a mens' homeless shelter. Periodically they ask for volunteers at the shelter. The shelter itself is run by the parish, and probably receives other funding from the Catholic Church as well as private donations.
This is obviously filling a need that the government does not see fit to fund, which is why the church stepped in. It's a small scale operation in a small town, and it just doesn't merit government funding of a full time civil servant, etc.
The whole point to block grants to community faith-based organizations is so that you do not have to re-invent the wheel. The framework is there, the program is effective, and it costs the government MUCH less money to give to an existing charity so it can increase capacity, rather than start anew and maintain capacity when none may be needed at that moment.
Take this homeless shelter, where the "paid employees" are the local priest, maybe some nuns and brothers, and they all have other duties as WELL as the homeless shelter. To work for the dioscese, you have to be open to working in several other fields- the positions simply aren't "just secular" and so they require membership in that faith. Even if they're not evangelizing to the shelter inhabitants, they're not going to be hiring non-Catholics or non-Christians.
Argue that they should STILL receive no federal funds if you wish, even though such organizations are by far the most practical and efficient choice for stepping in at sudden disasters like this. My answer to that argument is that the government should stop funding organizations like Planned Parenthood as well. You don't want Fed funds going to a bunch of nuns running shelters because you're not into organized religion? Fine. I don't want Fed funds going to Planned Parenthood while they advocate things I and other "pro life" people don't agree with, either. To change it to something "acceptable" to me would change the nature of the organization, some would argue. So don't fund either. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
sort of. | by unjust | 2005-10-06 09:34:19 |
|
But Uncle Sam wouldn't be distributing the soup... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 09:48:00 |
|
so here is the question: | by unjust | 2005-10-06 09:59:47 |
|
It's so they can do more. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 10:45:56 |
|
no. you entirely missed my point | by unjust | 2005-10-06 13:39:09 |
|
The legality has already been covered before. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:46:16 |
|
you still miss my point. | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:14:43 |
|
The main focus of the article I posted... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:22:29 |
|
no, personally i think afirmative action | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:38:58 |
|
You've been taking an absolutist position... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:47:09 |
|
you misconstrue my point | by unjust | 2005-10-06 15:06:50 |
|
A note on the legality issue. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:24:41 |
|
actually i was arguing wether | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:45:30 |
|
A point of agreement: | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:35:21 |
|
Yes, but consider what the current laws say. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 10:49:11 |
|
True. It doesn't mean the judge was right | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:56:31 |
|
Just heading off at the pass. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 11:00:47 |
|
actually | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:21:58 |
|
Internal functions? | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:25:44 |
|
you're confusing my arguments | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:41:51 |
|
unjust made some good... | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 09:55:59 |
|
s/"in necessary"/"is necessary" (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 10:00:18 |
|
it is highly suspect. of course so is | by unjust | 2005-10-06 10:21:19 |
|
My ex is catholic and works in a Synagogue school | by Havoc | 2005-10-06 10:46:46 |
|
Agreed with you, with caution. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 10:57:30 |
|
Understood. :) | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 12:43:13 |
|
Not a cop out, a recognition of boundaries. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:31:44 |
|
There's no "partially equal opportunity" though. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 11:19:44 |
