See, but then Ted would go without the amazing services he gets from a religious organization that is paid for with Medicaid. People don't realize that they are actually entwined.
I'd hate to see those people go without. Not just my son, but the adults they serve, too. Lutheran Services offers REAL independence to disabled adults. Left up to the state, they'd probably be in an institution.
There are a lot of religious organizations, or organizations that were originally affiliated with religious groups that provided social services, especially to immigrant/ethnic communities. I interned with Jewish Vocational Services in Chicago, and they were such an organization. However, for them to receive federal monies, they had to expand their services to populations that weren't specific to the original organization (they were set up for Jewish immigrants, primarily from Eastern Europe.)
They are entwined. But, there was a time where some communities formed their own, independent, social services (and health services) that weren't funded by government interests, but by the smaller and global community. This goes back to a time where people didn't live as long, where there was no such thing as any real insurance, and where knowing your neighbors, attending your local religious services, joining the Masons, the Elks, YMCA, etc was part of what provided you security.
I think that the reason we're so entwined is because many have forgotten that we need each other to survive, and that communities CAN work together and be a positive force. This requires, however, to know your neighbors, be a part of civic pride, compromise some of the freedom of thought and expression (radical independence) that came from the 1960's, and really take it on that YOU as an individual have a responsibility to the greater world outside yourself. Hands on. And no pill, product or check to some charity is going to do it for you.
I'll admit to being a bit more on the libertarian side of the scale these days, but also my time working in social services has taught me that social services cannot fend for themselves in depressed communities without government funds. The depressed communities don't have the capital, and the social services once provided by religious and ethnic centered community groups can't handle the demand as church coffers, for instance, bleed dry (think of the Catholic church and paying for the molestation scandals.
It's definitely a complicated issue. But I think that is because that religious groups do not serve a solely religious function. There is a secular function of some religious groups, that while motivated by their religious beliefs, can serve the public good. It's unfortunate that some religious organizations do their good works on a conditional basis - such as, you convert, and we'll feed you, you don't, and you'll starve. These are problems not necessarily of the religion or the beliefs, but the individuals and how they choose to serve others. You don't have to be religious to be an asshole.
Anwyay - these are just thoughts that were brought up by the original Q&A and your response, kibbles.
These are interesting points. Likewise, if separation of church and state were completely absolute today, my class at a state school would not have been able to build a computer lab for a church in East St. Louis, IL. Religious organizations in East St. Louis are a major force for keeping things together down there where the state seems largely content to ignore the problems. We were encouraging the church we worked for to apply for Bush's faith-based initiatives dollars while they were still around (my philosophy: I'm not sure that funding should be there on those terms, but I definitely want people who could do good things with the money to get it while it's there).
So I'm not quite sure what I think either, other than in principle I fear anything that even smells like theocracy or favoring certain religious groups (or any religion over no religion) in government, but in practice that I know some good stuff as well as some dubious stuff comes out of the system as it is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 08:39 pm (UTC)I'd hate to see those people go without. Not just my son, but the adults they serve, too. Lutheran Services offers REAL independence to disabled adults. Left up to the state, they'd probably be in an institution.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 09:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 09:20 pm (UTC)They are entwined. But, there was a time where some communities formed their own, independent, social services (and health services) that weren't funded by government interests, but by the smaller and global community. This goes back to a time where people didn't live as long, where there was no such thing as any real insurance, and where knowing your neighbors, attending your local religious services, joining the Masons, the Elks, YMCA, etc was part of what provided you security.
I think that the reason we're so entwined is because many have forgotten that we need each other to survive, and that communities CAN work together and be a positive force. This requires, however, to know your neighbors, be a part of civic pride, compromise some of the freedom of thought and expression (radical independence) that came from the 1960's, and really take it on that YOU as an individual have a responsibility to the greater world outside yourself. Hands on. And no pill, product or check to some charity is going to do it for you.
I'll admit to being a bit more on the libertarian side of the scale these days, but also my time working in social services has taught me that social services cannot fend for themselves in depressed communities without government funds. The depressed communities don't have the capital, and the social services once provided by religious and ethnic centered community groups can't handle the demand as church coffers, for instance, bleed dry (think of the Catholic church and paying for the molestation scandals.
It's definitely a complicated issue. But I think that is because that religious groups do not serve a solely religious function. There is a secular function of some religious groups, that while motivated by their religious beliefs, can serve the public good. It's unfortunate that some religious organizations do their good works on a conditional basis - such as, you convert, and we'll feed you, you don't, and you'll starve. These are problems not necessarily of the religion or the beliefs, but the individuals and how they choose to serve others. You don't have to be religious to be an asshole.
Anwyay - these are just thoughts that were brought up by the original Q&A and your response,
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 09:36 pm (UTC)So I'm not quite sure what I think either, other than in principle I fear anything that even smells like theocracy or favoring certain religious groups (or any religion over no religion) in government, but in practice that I know some good stuff as well as some dubious stuff comes out of the system as it is.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 09:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 09:45 pm (UTC)