Separation of Church & State? Not in NY !

[beebrisk]

There''s been an awful lot of talk lately about the "separation of church and state" and how the supposed lack of such separation is threatening the rights of gays and others.

Although it''s lost on many, this political principle was intended to protect the church from the state (not the other way around).

Thought you might like to see what ensues when the STATE imposes itself...on the church!


NYC Churches Ordered Not To Shelter Homeless
NEW YORK (CBS) ― City officials have ordered 22 New York churches to stop providing beds to homeless people.

With temperatures well below freezing early Saturday, the churches must obey a city rule requiring faith-based shelters to be open at least five days a week -- or not at all.

Arnold Cohen, president of the Partnership for the Homeless, a nonprofit that serves as a link with the city, said he had to tell the churches they no longer qualify.

He said hundreds of people now won''t have a place to sleep.

So where''s the outcry and outrage here?

 

[perry]

This is really a sad state of affairs.... and I really have no comment on its idiocy...

To expand a bit on the subject:

What upsets me in this whole church vs state & tax exempt status is that originally the resons that churches and some civic orgainizations were granted tax exempt status was becasue by and large the churches and those other civic organizations provided all the aid to those in need. Government did not have welfare or any related individual or family help services. The Churches and Civic organizations provided for that (which is also why the people generally tithed to the church). Of course, government taxes were a fraction of what they are today.

Now, the Government generally provides almost all of services to people in needs - and yet the churches and civic organizations are still tax exempt (and you should here them yell if anyone suggests that they should not be tax exempt).

Personally, I think that either we need to dismantle most of the government services and shift it back to the churches (allowing them to demonstrate why they should be tax exempt).... or eliminate the tax exempt status of most churches. I would consider that religions that do in fact take care of their own as eligible for tax exempt status (Amish, meninites, etc). I note that somehow these religions also don''t seem to have a lot of tax exempt property in the communities they operate in. I think that something like 10% of the "commercial" land in most cities is tax exempt - mainly due to ownership by religious groups. To anyone who knows anything about the cost of local government services and the local tax base... the percentage of tax exempt properties and the cost of government services are provided.

 

[sklingem]

That really does not make a lot of sense. Let''s hope that the city does indeed provide enough shelters as they have stated - having homeless people out in the cold is criminal.

 

[ksinger]

I don''t see this as some nefarious plan to impose the state on churches. What this very probably is, is a turf battle for those "faith-based initiative" tax dollars (or greater opportunity to spread THEIR message over those "other guys'' message) , and the other "faith-based" organizations are trying to use an old law to get their beds occupied over the other churches that don''t provide as many nights. One article I read had this little tidbit...

"On Saturday, the city Department of Homeless Services said there is plenty of space at other shelters to accept all those who have been sleeping in the churches. The spaces include four new faith-based sites where the number of beds combined with availability amounts to a greater total number of nights for people to stay, said Homeless Services spokeswoman Heather J. Janik. There are now about 250 beds in churches, mosques and synagogues."

Hmmmmmm...........sounds like a turf battle to me....

I''d be curious though, as to why the law being invoked, was originally written the way it was.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 11/23/2008 11:21:53 AM
Author: ksinger
I don''t see this as some nefarious plan to impose the state on churches. What this very probably is, is a turf battle for those ''faith-based initiative'' tax dollars (or greater opportunity to spread THEIR message over those ''other guys'' message) , and the other ''faith-based'' organizations are trying to use an old law to get their beds occupied over the other churches that don''t provide as many nights. One article I read had this little tidbit...


''On Saturday, the city Department of Homeless Services said there is plenty of space at other shelters to accept all those who have been sleeping in the churches. The spaces include four new faith-based sites where the number of beds combined with availability amounts to a greater total number of nights for people to stay, said Homeless Services spokeswoman Heather J. Janik. There are now about 250 beds in churches, mosques and synagogues.''


Hmmmmmm...........sounds like a turf battle to me....


I''d be curious though, as to why the law being invoked, was originally written the way it was.

..And the homeless are used as pawns. Easy for the city to be heavy handed here when their target is completely powerless.

Call it a "turf battle" or whatever you want. While the city concerns itself with "faith based initiatives" people are being thrown out on the street.

Inexcusable...

 

[ksinger]

Date: 11/23/2008 11:55:29 AM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 11/23/2008 11:21:53 AM
Author: ksinger

I don''t see this as some nefarious plan to impose the state on churches. What this very probably is, is a turf battle for those ''faith-based initiative'' tax dollars (or greater opportunity to spread THEIR message over those ''other guys'' message) , and the other ''faith-based'' organizations are trying to use an old law to get their beds occupied over the other churches that don''t provide as many nights. One article I read had this little tidbit...


''On Saturday, the city Department of Homeless Services said there is plenty of space at other shelters to accept all those who have been sleeping in the churches. The spaces include four new faith-based sites where the number of beds combined with availability amounts to a greater total number of nights for people to stay, said Homeless Services spokeswoman Heather J. Janik. There are now about 250 beds in churches, mosques and synagogues.''


Hmmmmmm...........sounds like a turf battle to me....


I''d be curious though, as to why the law being invoked, was originally written the way it was.

..And the homeless are used as pawns. Easy for the city to be heavy handed here when their target is completely powerless.

Call it a ''turf battle'' or whatever you want. While the city concerns itself with ''faith based initiatives'' people are being thrown out on the street.

Inexcusable...

I didn''t "excuse" it by seeing it as a turf-battle. I simply don''t cast this issue in the grand cosmic good vs. evil terms that you do. And the turf battle, if that is what it is, would not be between the city and the churches, but between competing faith-based groups (some of whom have more stroke with key people in the city hierarchy, and are calling in a favor or two) needing to show proof that their programs are meeting a need, in order to continue receiving federal funds. All this is of course a surmise; there doesn''t appear to be enough info out there to determine what is really going on. I just thought it was interesting, that other, new faith-based programs were mentioned...made me think.

Of course you are right, that it is shameful that the weak are being used as pawns. Sadly though, it doesn''t surprise me.

 

[starsapphire]

So, if I understand correctly, the reason they can''t shelter the homeless, is that they do not qualify for tax dollars for the homeless, because their shelter is not open at least 5 days a week.


http://wcbstv.com/topstories/church.homeless.shelter.2.871184.html

To me, that makes the churches look bad, like they are just doing it for the tax dollars?

 

[strmrdr]

ah an area where I can shed some light on this...
It is a turf battle and a money battle but not the way some think.
The temporary shelters do not receive hud funds they also do not have to participate in mandatory accounting of the peoples information that hud requires for funding.
Many homeless only come in during the worst of weather and often these people will never go to the usual shelters often because of a bad experience there.
The problem comes in that the hud funds are tied into the mandatory accounting program hud has(HMIS).
So if they don''t go to the regular shelter or use other services the city does not get hud money for them because they are not in HMIS.
This is nothing more than the city putting hud money over peoples lives and is a problem all over the country, they have went after a lot of programs that are not using hud funds.
How do you get on the cities approved list? 1st requirement is HUD funding and HMIS which for a small outfit costs more than the HUD grant!!!!
Here is a link to the program:


http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/hmis/assistance/

This entire system pisses me off starting with the invasion of privacy from HUD and the disregard for the needs of the homeless to get more money.

If I come across as being pissed off about this it is because I am.

 

[Kaleigh]

I''m pissed right a long with you Karl.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 11/23/2008 1:12:07 PM
Author: starsapphire
So, if I understand correctly, the reason they can''t shelter the homeless, is that they do not qualify for tax dollars for the homeless, because their shelter is not open at least 5 days a week.



http://wcbstv.com/topstories/church.homeless.shelter.2.871184.html


To me, that makes the churches look bad, like they are just doing it for the tax dollars?

I honestly don''t care about the churche''s motivation. They are doing a service. Surely the city can find a compromise here instead of throwing people out on the street.

I guess though, humanity is thrown out the window when (GOD FORBID) there are a few tax dollars in question.

I''d be hard pressed to believe a person in such dire straights that needs a warm place to sleep (it''s 27 degrees here today) would prefer a city run shelter to a church shelter. But then again, they have no money and have no voice so the heck with them!

It makes me angry.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 11/23/2008 1:15:29 PM
Author: strmrdr
ah an area where I can shed some light on this...

It is a turf battle and a money battle but not the way some think.

The temporary shelters do not receive hud funds they also do not have to participate in mandatory accounting of the peoples information that hud requires for funding.

Many homeless only come in during the worst of weather and often these people will never go to the usual shelters often because of a bad experience there.

The problem comes in that the hud funds are tied into the mandatory accounting program hud has(HMIS).

So if they don''t go to the regular shelter or use other services the city does not get hud money for them because they are not in HMIS.

This is nothing more than the city putting hud money over peoples lives and is a problem all over the country, they have went after a lot of programs that are not using hud funds.

How do you get on the cities approved list? 1st requirement is HUD funding and HMIS which for a small outfit costs more than the HUD grant!!!!

Here is a link to the program:



http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/hmis/assistance/


This entire system pisses me off starting with the invasion of privacy from HUD and the disregard for the needs of the homeless to get more money.


If I come across as being pissed off about this it is because I am.

Bigger picture:
This is how the state WILL act when a particular segment of the public is absolutely powerless.
Did someone say "gun ban" ?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/23/2008 1:12:07 PM
Author: starsapphire
So, if I understand correctly, the reason they can''t shelter the homeless, is that they do not qualify for tax dollars for the homeless, because their shelter is not open at least 5 days a week.



http://wcbstv.com/topstories/church.homeless.shelter.2.871184.html


To me, that makes the churches look bad, like they are just doing it for the tax dollars?

This pisses me off also the media will not provide the truth on this issue even when a well researched report is put in front of them with verifiable facts! (From personal experience I know this to be the case)

starsapphire thanks for posting this as it shows how the media is not doing its job at getting to the facts and reporting them!!!
It is not the Churches that are doing it for tax money it is the city that is going after them to get more tax money!!!!!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/23/2008 1:28:08 PM
Author: beebrisk
Bigger picture:

This is how the state WILL act when a particular segment of the public is absolutely powerless.

Did someone say 'gun ban' ?

one of the results of hmis has been identity theft on a massive scale.
The data is not kept secure.
They were talking about removing the request for a SS# but last I heard they had not.
It is hard enough for homeless people to recover but to all the sudden get back on track then have bill collectors hounding them over stuff that they did not do and in some cases criminal cases against them when it wasn't them.
It often drives them right back to the streets!

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 11/23/2008 1:44:44 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/23/2008 1:28:08 PM

Author: beebrisk

Bigger picture:


This is how the state WILL act when a particular segment of the public is absolutely powerless.


Did someone say ''gun ban'' ?

one of the results of hmis has been identity theft on a massive scale.

The data is not kept secure.

They were talking about removing the request for a SS# but last I heard they had not.

It is hard enough for homeless people to recover but to all the sudden get back on track then have bill collectors hounding them over stuff that they did not do and in some cases criminal cases against them when it wasn''t them.

It often drives them right back to the streets!

Yup!
The more vulnerable you are, the easier it is for the state to encroach on your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And it''s not a matter of "if" they will. It''s a matter of "when" they will. History has proven it over and over again.

 

[iheartscience]

As a matter of fact, the issue of homelessness is one that I see up close and personal on a daily basis. There are several homeless people that spend much of their day steps away from my apartment. And one homeless man in particular, who is in a wheelchair, hangs out behind my work and was sleeping on a couch someone put out for the trash. We tried to get him to go to a shelter when it got really cold, and my coworker actually got a shelter employee to come out and try to convince him to go to a shelter.

However, he doesn't like the shelter because they don't let him bring all his stuff with him (he has a shopping cart he wheels along with him filled with stuff) and he wouldn't go. We worry about him a lot, especially because as a wheelchair bound person, he probably has circulation issues that maybe aren't being dealt with.

 

[beebrisk]

I am just so very tired and weary of special interest groups screaming for their "rights" and invoking the separation principle at the drop of a hat for every perceived violation.

Meantime, New York City is confiscating beds to make good and sure that a few dozen penniless and homeless men, woman and children don't sleep in a church because the tax monster needs feeding.

I'm furious at this city I live in and love. To call it "shameful" doesn't even cover it.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

To be fair there is a massive difference between social charity and forced social welfare. I think it's fabulous that people want to give to mankind, because it is their *chioice*. To be forced to give up one's propery under the law is an entirely different issue.

ETA: Interesting story, Beebrisk, and a good example of how churches should be protected FROM the state. Karl, you made some interesting turf war points as well.