Post by dgriffin on Jul 2, 2008 10:13:17 GMT -5
Obama Seeks Bigger Role for Religious Groups
www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02obama.html
What an awfully slippery slope! Many charitable organizations are finding themselves hard pressed to meet their bills. Manna from on high looks pretty good. But accepting money will compromise any agency, church or organization.
I volunteer for a "general help and crisis" organization that has recently begun to accept money from New York State's OASAS agency (Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services) in return for providing statistics regarding our clients' use of alcohol or illicit drugs. Clients volunteer to be anonymously included in the statistics, so you would think all would be OK. But recently, the agency has held over our heads adherence to their rules for an OASAS-sponsored facility, if we want to continue receiving funds. Asking clients to not shoot up or drink on our premises is certainly acceptable. But then OASAS decided smoking was an addiction and we couldn't allow smoking on the property. Well, OK, we didn't allow it in the building anyway or on the front porch , but now we had to tell clients they needed to cross the street to smoke. And then OASAS decided that clients could not carry smoking materials on the property, so we're supposed to ask them to throw out their butts if we see them bulging out of their pocket. Say what? Not me! The stuff ain't contraband and I'm a strict constitutionalist.
Not long ago a local Domestic Violence Shelter began to accept money from the county's Social Services department. Child Protective Services then entered the picture and insisted mothers with children at the shelter be screened for drug use. On one hand, that makes sense, since a drug-using mother can be a danger to her children. However, a woman who knows she could lose her children while seeking protection from a boyfriend or husband who pummels her nightly will now think twice before seeking asylum and therefore put the safety of herself and her children at risk. And maybe only because she smoked weed a couple of weeks ago. These are not easy situations to sort out, but for sure a bureaucratic bludgeon is not the answer.
Churches and social service organizations should beware.
www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02obama.html
What an awfully slippery slope! Many charitable organizations are finding themselves hard pressed to meet their bills. Manna from on high looks pretty good. But accepting money will compromise any agency, church or organization.
I volunteer for a "general help and crisis" organization that has recently begun to accept money from New York State's OASAS agency (Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services) in return for providing statistics regarding our clients' use of alcohol or illicit drugs. Clients volunteer to be anonymously included in the statistics, so you would think all would be OK. But recently, the agency has held over our heads adherence to their rules for an OASAS-sponsored facility, if we want to continue receiving funds. Asking clients to not shoot up or drink on our premises is certainly acceptable. But then OASAS decided smoking was an addiction and we couldn't allow smoking on the property. Well, OK, we didn't allow it in the building anyway or on the front porch , but now we had to tell clients they needed to cross the street to smoke. And then OASAS decided that clients could not carry smoking materials on the property, so we're supposed to ask them to throw out their butts if we see them bulging out of their pocket. Say what? Not me! The stuff ain't contraband and I'm a strict constitutionalist.
Not long ago a local Domestic Violence Shelter began to accept money from the county's Social Services department. Child Protective Services then entered the picture and insisted mothers with children at the shelter be screened for drug use. On one hand, that makes sense, since a drug-using mother can be a danger to her children. However, a woman who knows she could lose her children while seeking protection from a boyfriend or husband who pummels her nightly will now think twice before seeking asylum and therefore put the safety of herself and her children at risk. And maybe only because she smoked weed a couple of weeks ago. These are not easy situations to sort out, but for sure a bureaucratic bludgeon is not the answer.
Churches and social service organizations should beware.