Don’t anyone dare act surprised. There’s clear precedent for this. Remember when the White House asked Georgetown to cover a a gold “IHS” monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name with a piece of black-painted plywood while Obama gave his speech?
Well that was just the beginning.
Religious organizations can continue doing all their nice little charity work thingies but the federal government is considering forcing them to stop being so…well…religious.
According to OnFaith blog, Obama’s faith council is debating forcing religious charities to cover up any and all religious icons if they receive federal funding.
OnFaith reports:
Obama’s faith council is finalizing its draft report this week, and one of the key debates that emerged from the phone conference yesterday was whether there should be rules requiring religious groups to cover up religious symbols if they receive federal funding for services. For example, if a church gets money for a soup kitchen, would it have to remove or put a cloth over all crosses, pictures, etc., every time it gets ready to feed the hungry?
That sparked a lively debate among council members that largely dominated yesterday’s two-hour teleconference. Melissa Rogers, director of Wake Forest’s Center for Religion and Public Affairs, who is leading the group tasked with solving such church-state issues laid ouit three possibilities the council could recommend:
1. Making such religious icons not allowed for federally funded services.
2. Allowing it only if no other religious neutral rooms are available and covering up such icons is impractical.
3. Not requiring removal of such icons but encouraging religious orgs to be sensitive about the issue.
So remember when Obama said he decided to continue President Bush’s funding of faith based organizations, I’m pretty sure that this White House continued it only so that the money could be used as a Trojan Horse that could destroy or at least secularize religious organizations.
How many religious organizations will accept this money as a means to do good only to have the moral basis for that good removed.
Catholic schools should be especially wary right now. And if there’s ever been a reason to fear vouchers, this is it.
In the end so many of us have already accepted that the larger government grows the less room it will leave open to religion. We must accept that the ire of the administration is focused squarely on those bitter people clinging to guns and religion. We should only pray that religious organizations continue to ask themselves “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?”
HT Pewsitter
January 14, 2010 at 2:45 pm
They can keep their damned money.
And in this use, that's not a swear.
January 14, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I am no fan of this potus, but I think you are overreacting here. The good old USA would never do anything to impinge upon religious freedom.
January 14, 2010 at 3:28 pm
This is what happens when Govt takes the lion's share of a families "discretionary" spending allowance through taxation. If you are "well off" you could see 30% of your income evaporate (or more) in State and Federal taxes…. much less to contribute to charities who will help the needy in the name of Jesus Christ. These charities are thrown a "life line" (death line more like it…) from the Govt who provides them funding so long as they stop proclaiming the Gospel to the POOR! People need to WAKE UP! This is a purposeful destruction of the MEANS for proclaiming the Gospel.
January 14, 2010 at 3:28 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
January 14, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Anon: Tell it to Georgetown. At least they'd believe you.
January 14, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Anonymous 10:21,
It's exactly that sentiment that allows the government to get away with doing just that. We need to be vigilant with freedom, not take it for granted.
January 14, 2010 at 3:29 pm
By "Anon" I meant the first one.
January 14, 2010 at 5:48 pm
If Anon's being honest, he's not a regular reader.
I do hope we're overreacting in as much this is one person on the council who hates religion down to their bones, and it can be shouted down.
Though it would be pretty funny if Churches got letters that more or less stated, "Please be aware that your faith is offensive."
January 14, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Anonymous @ 10:21 AM wrote:
I am no fan of this potus, but I think you are overreacting here. The good old USA would never do anything to impinge upon religious freedom.
You're being satirical/facetious, right?
January 14, 2010 at 6:20 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
January 14, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Re: Anonymous @ 10:21
Religion is the main opponent of this regime. Abp. Burke referred to this in his exhortation yesterday saying, "A society that masks 'totalitarianism' with 'hope' will destroy itself"
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/a_society_that_masks_totalitarianism_with_hope_will_destroy_itself_warns_archbishop_burke/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+catholicnewsagency/dailynews+(CNA+Daily+News)
January 14, 2010 at 6:34 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
January 14, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Answer is simple: Tell Satan to keep his money and set up his own "charities".
January 14, 2010 at 8:04 pm
The charities should tell them to put the money where the sun never shines.
One nickel at a time.
January 14, 2010 at 8:07 pm
I remember right after 9/11 when the Saudi representative tried to give a very large check to then Mayor Giuliani, Giuliani flatly refused to accept it on principle.
Well, if the ever so disobedient, pro-abortion "Catholic" Mr.Giuliani can have big enough stones (excuse me) to do that, will our leaning to the left Bishops have the guts to do the same?
BTW,Mr Alexander is correct. If you think this is not a possibility, ask the wimps at Georgetown if it can happen.
Hmmm, Im just sayin'…
January 14, 2010 at 8:22 pm
In the book A Swiftly Tilting Planet, Mark is tested as to his loyalty by being asked to profane a crucifix. He ultimately refuses and that is the indication that he cannot be bought, that he is not "of" the Head's organization.
The State says You can practice whatever you want as long as you don't speak it, teach it, show it…virtual religion is just that.
There is a current push to remove religions from charities and failing that, charities from religion. It has happened whenever there has been a clash between a Charity that advocated a value, and the government that wanted a value dropped. Witness Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, the push to demand churches recognize same sex marriage irreguardless of their creeds, the push to fund abortions and stem cell research regardless of moral opposition, to provide access to such things a birth control by insurance through institutions like the Catholic church for those who want it, and demand referals for abortions from Catholic hospitals and pregnancy centers designed to protect the unborn. Fine. Put the plywood in the form of a cross. Burn images into the wood of the icons and say it just happened to be that way.
January 14, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Sherry – excellent book, but I believe that you are referring to an incident near the end of CS Lewis' neglected sci-fi trilogy, "That Hideous Strength."
Point taken, however, and if he who was at the time a non-believer could respond thus, then so should we.
January 14, 2010 at 9:08 pm
(By "he" I mean Mark, of course, not Lewis… Sorry Mr. Lewis!)
:::sheepish:::
January 15, 2010 at 12:01 am
Thanks for the correction, I apologize for the error.
January 15, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Just as an FYI, this is EXACTLY what happened in the UK this last decade. In fact it is hard to believe they did not either consult or look to the British on this issue. In the UK, ANY organization receiving public funds of any kind (and we're talking even thrift shops which are everywhere in London) could not display any religious symbols, or even so much as a "Merry Christmas" sign in their window. This culminated in 2003 with a case where some swishy liberal git demanded that all hospital chapels now cover up their crosses. That was the "last straw" and the public finally did react (in a typical English fashion). The liberal goon-squad did lay off for awhile after that, but it's now back to the original status quo.
Honestly, I don't think the same will happen in the US. They may try it, but Americans are made up of much stronger stuff than the English, especially when it comes to religious rights and symbols. I'm not trying to rabble rouse or get a "U-S-A! U-S-A!" chorus going. Just stating an observation.