Delivery of Social Services through Faith-Based Organizations

Excerpt taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/faithb.html

The growing interest in the provision of public social services via faith-based organizations stems from several factors. First, some faith-based organizations have demonstrated dramatic success in curbing or alleviating social problems in particularly distressed communities. For example, the efforts of Reverend Eugene Rivers of the Azusa Christian Community in the Dorchester section of Boston have been credited with reducing the juvenile murder rate in that community to almost zero. Second, social science data has increasingly documented a strong inverse correlation between religious commitment and social pathologies. Beginning with Harvard economist Richard Freeman’s work on church attendance and juvenile delinquency, numerous studies have shown that religious commitment tends to lessen the tendency of both children and adults to engage in counterproductive behaviors, ranging from delinquency to addiction and violence. Third, dissatisfaction with the outcome of government programs has led both to reduction in federal welfare spending and increased pressure to enlist the help of faith- and community-based organizations in caring for the poor. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act included a "charitable choice" provision that permitted states to direct funds to faith-based organizations for childcare and other services aimed at helping welfare recipients return to work. Several states are taking advantage of these provisions.


The Debate

Advocates of enlisting faith-based organizations in the provision of public services point to anecdotal evidence of the success of faith-based programs. They argue that the dangers posed by the social problems such as drug addiction or teen homicide outweigh any threat to the separation of church and state posed by the use of faith-based organizations. They often argue that faith-based or religiously oriented approaches are inherently more effective than secular approaches in changing behavior.

Opponents argue that directing government funds, at either the federal or state level, to sectarian organizations raises serious separation issues. While organizations such as Catholic Charities and Lutheran Charities have long received large subsidies from the federal government, such traditional charities have pursued their efforts in a self-consciously nonsectarian manner. Critics argue that newer faith-based approaches, such as that embodied by Eugene Rivers program in Boston or Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship, rely explicitly on proselytization as the means of effecting behavioral change. Subsidies to such organizations, according to critics, can amount to violations of the Constitution’s establishment clause because they involve the state directly in supporting the spread of particular religious views.


The Communitarian View

Communitarians emphasize the role of the community as a potent "third force" in shaping the conduct and quality of both individual and collective life. Communitarians argue that a healthy and strong community can frequently exert a deeper and more lasting influence on individual behavior than the state acting via law and law enforcement. The restoration of vitality and safety to beleaguered neighborhoods and cities usually requires a revitalization of the organic community institutions that enrich and order community life. Healthy families and churches and neighborhood communities and like institutions are the key to shaping the conduct of children in such a way that they will become productive adults.

For this reason, communitarians generally support a creative division of labor, which permits the state to channel resources to community organizations, including faith-based organizations, for the provision of services within a community. Community-based organizations, including church organizations, have a comparative advantage in dealing "close-up" with community members. Communitarians believe that safeguards need to be in place to protect the individual’s free exercise of religious rights under the Constitution. Social service should not be provided as a quid pro quo for religious adherence; secular alternatives should also be available. But for those individuals who choose them, faith-based alternatives have been shown to accomplish dramatic improvements in the quality of both individual and community life..

A division of labor that permits faith-based organizations to act as service providers observes the key communitarian principle of subsidiarity--which posits that no unit of society should perform functions more appropriately performed by a smaller entity. The neighborhood should not usurp the normal function of the family; the city the function of the neighborhood; the state the function of the city; or the federal government the function of the state. Similarly, the bureaucratic government should not usurp the immediate functions of the family and the church. Use of faith-based organizations as service providers--with proper Constitutional safeguards--permits common resources to be directed toward strengthening the community rather than enhancing the power of the state, often at the expense of community institutions.

Marriage and the Separation of Church and State

Will you have this woman/man to be your wife/husband to live together according to God’s decree in the holy estate of marriage? Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honor and keep her/him, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, faithfully keep to her/him alone, so long as you both shall live?

If you have answered I will to the question above in front of witnesses and you are a Christian, then you are married.

If you have said or have had said to you in front of witnesses "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel" and you are Jewish, then you are married.

I could go on but the point is that there is no need for government to be in marriage. If a persons vows to the other are not enough we have contracts that can lend legal binding to an agreement. Marriage is for the couple their families their community and frequently their church not the state.

by Matthew Bartko

Government should stay out of any marriage

Marshfield News Herald (Marshfield, Wisconsin)

Published Opinion.

August 9, 2003.

Editor:

Lately, homosexual marriages have been a subject of much unnecessary controversy. The simple solution to the gay marriage conflict is to privatize marriage. This would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one's private life would have official government sanction - exactly as it should be.

In the last century government intruded upon the marriage contract, among much else. The modern mistake is to think that important things must be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the government. Let's get the government out of marriage and allow individuals to make their own marriage contracts.

Marriage is an important institution. But it's only because marriage is wedded to the state that it causes a political debate and social friction. Should the state force employers to provide "benefits" to gay spouses? No, but neither should the state force employers to provide benefits to heterosexual spouses.

Both taxes and adoption are state-related activities. If there were no income tax, the issue of filing taxes jointly would be moot. Given that we have an income tax, there's no reason why the government can't treat all kinds of families the same, without resorting to legally sanctioning "marriage." Similarly, there's no reason why state-controlled adoptions can't treat gay partners the same as heterosexual ones.

The institutions of marriage and family are actually made stronger in an environment of freedom where each marriage or family decides for themselves the parameters of their relationships.

Aaron Biterman
Brookfield

The Role of Government Chart

Ideal
Very little government responsibility.	A lot of personal responsibility. Responsibility for themselves, their communities, and their nation. (this would require lots of charity and voluntarism)
How We Are
Some government responsibility.	Some personal responsibility.
Where We Are Heading
A lot of government responsibility. Responsibility for individuals, communities, and the nation. (this would require lots of taxes and bureaucracy)	Very little personal responsibility.

an excerpt from The Pope's Easter Message

taken from http://blog.beliefnet.com/viamedia/2009/04/urbi-et-orbi.html

"If it is true that death no longer has power over man and over the world, there still remain very many, in fact too many signs of its former dominion. Even if through Easter, Christ has destroyed the root of evil, he still wants the assistance of men and women in every time and place who help him to affirm his victory using his own weapons: the weapons of justice and truth, mercy, forgiveness and love. This is the message which, during my recent Apostolic Visit to Cameroon and Angola, I wanted to convey to the entire African continent, where I was welcomed with such great enthusiasm and readiness to listen. Africa suffers disproportionately from the cruel and unending conflicts, often forgotten, that are causing so much bloodshed and destruction in several of her nations, and from the growing number of her sons and daughters who fall prey to hunger, poverty and disease. I shall repeat the same message emphatically in the Holy Land, to which I shall have the joy of travelling in a few weeks from now. Reconciliation - difficult, but indispensable - is a precondition for a future of overall security and peaceful coexistence, and it can only be achieved through renewed, persevering and sincere efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My thoughts move outwards from the Holy Land to neighbouring countries, to the Middle East, to the whole world. At a time of world food shortage, of financial turmoil, of old and new forms of poverty, of disturbing climate change, of violence and deprivation which force many to leave their homelands in search of a less precarious form of existence, of the ever-present threat of terrorism, of growing fears over the future, it is urgent to rediscover grounds for hope. Let no one draw back from this peaceful battle that has been launched by Christ's Resurrection. For as I said earlier, Christ is looking for men and women who will help him to affirm his victory using his own weapons: the weapons of justice and truth, mercy, forgiveness and love.Resurrectio Domini, spes nostra! The resurrection of Christ is our hope! This the Church proclaims today with joy. She announces the hope that is now firm and invincible because God has raised Jesus Christ from the dead. She communicates the hope that she carries in her heart and wishes to share with all people in every place, especially where Christians suffer persecution because of their faith and their commitment to justice and peace. She invokes the hope that can call forth the courage to do good, even when it costs, especially when it costs. Today the Church sings "the day that the Lord has made", and she summons people to joy. Today the Church calls in prayer upon Mary, Star of Hope, asking her to guide humanity towards the safe haven of salvation which is the heart of Christ, the paschal Victim, the Lamb who has "redeemed the world", the Innocent one who has "reconciled us sinners with the Father". To him, our victorious King, to him who is crucified and risen, we sing out with joy our Alleluia!"

MORE ON THE CENTRIST DEMOCRAT INTERNATIONAL

Taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/subpagina.php?hoofdmenuID=1&submenuID=1

The Christian Democrat and People's Parties International was founded in 1961 under the name Christian Democrat World Union (CDWU). It stemmed from the "Nouvelles Equipes Internationales" (New International Teams), the organisation that was the predecessor of the European Union of Christian Democrats (EUCD), from the Christian Democrat Organisation of America (ODCA) and the Christian Democrat Union of Central Europe (CDUCE). In 1999, it adopted its present name.

The evolution of the international system since 1989, the end of the East-West confrontation which dominated the international scene since the end of World War II, as well as the appearance of new independent states, the struggle for democracy and the conditions of globalisation at the dawn of this new millennium, offer the peoples of the world new opportunities and new challenges for coexistence, both in national and international communities, so that they may live in peace, freedom, justice and solidarity.

The Christian Democrat and People’s Parties International federates the political parties and organisations based on the principles of Christian or integral humanism, that is, a humanism open to transcendency and committed to brotherhood. This implies on the part of these parties and organisations:

1. the irrevocable recognition of the dignity of every person, irrespective of sex, age, colour, economic, social or cultural status or personal convictions;

2. the recognition and promotion of the individual rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and complementary treaties;

3. the orientation of their policy in accordance with the fundamental values of the ethic of Christian or integral humanism, particularly the values of truth, freedom, personal responsibility, justice and solidarity;

4. the search for peace through the aforementioned values;

5. the recognition and assertion of the social nature of human beings, who live as members of the multiple communities, particularly the family, upon which human society is built;

6. the attainment of the common good as the objective of political society and the guiding principle of public power;

7. the recognition and defence of democracy as the sole form of political organisation of nations guaranteeing the participation of all in public life, particularly through free, secret, general and regular elections offering the possibility of alternation, within the framework of the rule of law, which ensures constitutional balance between State bodies;

8. the pursuit of sustainable human development with a view to satisfying the material, cultural and spiritual needs of the individual, the family and society whilst respecting their freedom and the natural environment, the resources of which must be preserved and renewed;

9. the recognition, particularly in the economic area, of the necessity to reconcile the private interests of the individual with those of others and of society as a whole, through measures based on the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity and justice, by means of a social and ecological market economy;

10. the promotion of forms of community organisation and participation that contribute, as of civil society, to development based on equity;

11. for optimal attainment of all the aforementioned, the adoption and maintenance of a centrist position, from which to pursue a policy that is as inclusive as possible and that introduces whatever changes may be required in society with the highest level of progress achievable fo all peoples through dialogue and consensus.

More on Health Care Reform

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9d92b651-cfcc-4a4a-83c3-b43aea91fc11

THE BIG PICTURE
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We do not need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.
We must advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.
WHAT WE CAN DO
We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families should get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. Americans must have more control of their health care options, not less.
We need to utilize the states as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and our next President should encourage those efforts. He should work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.
Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.
Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.

Core Values in Health-Care Reform

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Health2.html

Health-care reform is upon us. We urge that core values other than curbing costs and ensuring universal access be given due consideration. We all favor saving money; indeed, controlling health-care costs should allow the nation to provide more health services and higher quality care. We also strongly favor the inclusion of all Americans in our health-care system. However, we are deeply concerned that many of the reform efforts currently under review will unwittingly undermine the culture of care in their pursuit of savings and access.
We rise to speak for the moral commitments, the social and institutional arrangements that are essential to maintain both the trust between patients and health-care professionals, and the professional commitments of health-care personnel. Let us not turn the health-care community into a health industry; let us take the steps necessary to sustain and nourish the care in health care. Specifically, we raise a communitarian voice for:
. sustaining the balance between individual rights and social responsibilities, especially regarding that which we must do on our own, and for others, and that which we can legitimately expect from others in the way of health care. As a matter of simple justice, we believe that it is legitimate to ask one and all to make a contribution to the commons and not simply seek more from the commons.
. the need to protect the moral integrity and unique character of the health-care system. In particular, we warn against the intrusion of commercialism and the managerial imperative. Unless health-care reforms are carefully crafted, they may undermine a system which is far from flawless but treats millions every year--with a great deal of care.
. the imperative of providing coverage for and crafting a health system in which preventing disease and promoting health are an integral part of the plan, not afterthoughts.
. the imperative of reforming other aspects of American society to reduce the burdens on our health-care system. We must not treat health care as the social garbage can into which we deposit the ill consequences of our nations problems, and expect it readily to absorb the costs.
. the moral justification for cutting administrative waste, defensive medicine, lavish promotions and excessive profits before we begin rationing beneficial and humane health services.
. the priority of serving children, that vulnerable group of society which has no vote, has no political muscle and represents the future of the nation.
. and, the social responsibilities of health-care professionals, who ought to raise their moral voice to alert and counsel the society within which they work.
Only by attending to these signal areas, as we attempt to provide every American with decent health care, will we ensure that our health-care system will sustain rather than lose the culture of care and the moral values and institutional arrangements that sustain it.

to read more visit http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Health2.html

CDI Manifesto

taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/

The Centrist Democrat International on the side of the citizen
In a changing world, where the interdependence between West and East and North and
South is increasing, the Centrist Democrat view of society offers each person the
prospect of being able to thrive as an individual with specific talents, alongside other
individuals in the society. Centrist Democrats have clear answers to the new challenges
facing the international community. Placing themselves alongside the citizen, they are
building a world which also offers prospects to future generations.
The Centrist Democrat International (CDI) stands for the goals of Centrist Democrat
and related People's Parties and movements all over the world. As an international
organisation, the CDI supports the worldwide establishment of a free but socially
responsible market economy, which is the expression of the christian democratic ideal
for the shaping of our society.
The Centrist Democrat International sets out the following basic principles:
The fondamental values of Christian Democratic thinking, i.e. freedom and
responsibility, basic equality for all, justice, solidarité and subsidiarity, are the
keystones of a society in which individuals can thrive in coexistence with others. These
values hold out to the individual now and also to future generations the prospect of a
better world.
The recognition of fondamental human rights is the basis for building a society in which
individuals are able to fulfil themselves. Any attacks upon these rights must be opposed.
The nuclear family is the cornerstone of society, since it provides the best conditions for
the developments of the individual's personality. We must mobilise all available means
to ensure that the family is able to remain the environment in wich our children, the
adults of tomorrow, can grow into responsible people.
Poverty is a form of injustice. The international community must make strenous efforts
to abolish it. It is incombent on the developed countries
to help the less developed. We
must create the requisite conditions to enable countries to achieve their own
development. There is a need for a new set of development aid policies which will also
guarantee the personal safety of the aid providers.
Centrist Democrat and People's Parties, which place a high value on the principle of
solidarity, believe that economic policies must go hand in hand with a set of social
policies which will guarantee the weaker members of society the right to equal
opportunities for self-development. This concept of common responsibility also implies
the duty to integrate and support the disadvantaged in our societies.
Each society develops on the basis of the human resources available to it. Hence CDI
regards it as a priority to develop and support education and education systems.
Human beings ought to live in harmony with nature. CDI attaches great importance to
the development of a world environment policy designed to prevent problems and to
avoid shifting problems on to the less developed countries. Social development must not
lead to environmental damage. The present generation bears the responsibility for
managing our Earth properly and passing it on intact to future generations.
CDI is convinced of the need for cooperative links between countries. They support the
concept of federalism, in the spirit of genuine subsidiarity, and promote the idea of
regional cooperation agreements all over the world. In line with this process of
regionalisation, they strongly support mutual
cooperation between regional entities with
the goal of reducing the discrepancies between the various regions of the world.
The blueprint for cooperation on which the CDI is working is based upon a firm resolve
to establish peace and security across the world's borders. That is why the CDI is calling
for the setting up of efficient structures capable of guaranteeing peace and security.
They are convinced that the United Nations Organisation has a vital task to perform,
together with regional peace-keeping
organisations, in maintaining peace and
guaranteeing security. Dialogue and negotiation in all their forms in use in civil society
must take first priority in order to avert conflicts. In this respect, the process of
disarmament must be taken further, and
the international arms trade must be
discouraged.
In order to initiate, stimulate, and nourish the process of consultation among those who
share our view as to how society ought to develop, the CDI wishes to set up a strong
world organisation for the Centrist Democratic movement. The Centrist Democrat
International, with its President and Permanent Secretariat, must steer this organisation,
support the Member Parties and promote mutual consultation and agreement between
them.

WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Issues.View&Issue_id=fffe61d4-fc59-4970-a349-5edb944ce3f9

The words of the Second Amendment are really pretty simple: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yet, this has been one of the most hotly debated Amendments in our history. The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and
self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property. Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Gun control should never be based on geography.

Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government.

THE CONTROVERSY

Frequently politicians who favor gun control say that it doesn't affect hunting. But the truth is, the Second Amendment isn't really about hunting. It's about tyranny and self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer, they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms. Criminals will always find a way to get guns. By disarming our law-abiding citizens, we take away the strongest deterrent to violent criminals - the uncertainty that they don't know who is helpless and who is armed. Our law enforcement officials can't be everywhere, all the time. Lawfully-armed citizens back them up and prevent robberies, rapes, and the murder of innocents. Right after Katrina, with law enforcement non-existent, many victims were able to protect their lives, their homes, and their precious supplies of food and water only because they were armed.

Some politicians believe gun control should be determined geographically, but Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Your Second Amendment rights don't change when you change your address. Gun manufacturers must be protected from frivolous law suits. Rights must be given to law enforcement officials, such as permitting them to carry concealed handguns.

A major controversy about the right to bear arms is whether that should include assault weapons. Should Americans be allowed to have them? The answer is a resounding Yes!! Americans ought to be allowed to have anything they want to have, as long as they're law abiding, legal citizens. The Second Amendment was not put in our constitution for hunting.