Is providing aid to those that are in need, by groups with affiliations that incorporate sharing their faith or proselytizing while distributing the aid, a form of spiritual extortion or coercian?

I’m agnostic and vaguely disapprove of organised religions but wholly feel that aid offered to the public by charities is a Good Thing. Certainly it’s not like we have a lack of people in need in the world.

I do have a problem with organisations that might accept public support (like taxes) and use those in a purely religious manner like evangelism…

everyone’s entitled to their opinion. even charities. and if no one else will step up and fill an available spot then a religious charity will. so be it.

if you have a problem with them, all you have yo do is make a bigger secular charity to steal away their business. :)

If you are required to listen to a sermon etc in order to receive the aide being “offered” then that’s wrong imho.

I don’t think so. How can you judge someone’s true motives? Being that humans are basically selfish. I find it admirable to merely get your mind of yourself and help others. They have their own will and I doubt very much that simply meeting some of their physical needs is going to change their whole belief system. I do some missions work and the joy I get from giving and helping others far surpasses, “promoting my beliefs”. Compared to a lot of questions on this site.I find this one as one of the best!

I am not sure if it could be called extortion or coercion but it sure seems to me like psychological warfare or something slightly underhanded. If a person is in need they are apt to be vulnerable and therefore more likely to give in to something they may find disagreeable when they are in a stronger condition. A true charity gives freely with no strings attached.

nothing is free i guess

Not if your free to leave at any time. If someone offends or pressures then you simply bolt.

If someone has the ability to choose “help with a sermon” vs “no help and no sermon”, that’s their right to choose. I see nothing overly wrong with that.

That being said, however, if I was on the receiving end, such behavior would have the exact opposite of the intended effect. “You have the power and the desire to help me, but not until you make me listen to your religious beliefs. This is what you consider charity? This is what your religion considers good deeds? Your religion is BS.” It would not encourage me to convert to that religion. It would encourage me to despise it.

“Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” Missions, as they were, are among the first recorded Christian acts. Missionaries went out to proselytize and then to baptize. Today, missions are an act of almost every organized religion and come in a myriad of shapes & forms. However, it must be noted that missions are also a part of the charitable acts of many groups with no religious affiliation at all.

Charity, by definition, is the practice of benevolent giving. If you are on the receiving end of that giving, lucky you. Choosing to take that charity is exactly that, a choice. Most of the time people are willing to take the gifts even if there are strings attached, such as a sermon or speech. Certainly, the benefits of receiving running water in your village outweigh the risks of listening to a religious message. As far as using the word coercion, I think that’s heavy handed. You may be forced to listen, but you cannot be forced to believe. Likewise the word extortion seems illogical here, you cannot take someones spiritual belief unlawfully; IMHO.

In practice, a 501C-3 organization is granted that status of partial tax exemption due to meeting a stringent code of charitable giving. Most non-profits are formed specifically for the purpose of charitable giving. Hence, they are often tied to organizations that are charitable albeit, political, educational or religious in nature and support.

Does the end result mean that those in need get much needed help? Look at it this way; I can take a free vacation tomorrow to one of a dozen places. I can stay in luxury accommodations; and enjoy the surrounding venue and amenities – free of charge. To receive this generous offer, I need just sit through an hour long speech about the benefits of time-share ownership. I can sit and listen, but in the end it is up to me to decide whether or not I buy in. In the end, I still get the vacation.

I think we are all aware that nothing is ‘free’... however I have always been of the mind that if someone needs a meal… feed em… then give them a means to ‘pay back’... like helping serve others or cleaning up. I think you remove dignity when you simply ‘hand out’.

I’d like to tell you a story about that.

There is this pagan tribe somewhere in S.America (I think Ecuador, could be Peru though). They live high up in the mountains as nomads, but have some stable settlements which were basically formed around churches built by catholic missionaries.

Every month or so a bunch of priests comes down in a helicopter, bringing sugar, flour, medicines, etc. The tribe hear the helicopter approaching and go clean up the church, light the candles and so on. After the aid is handed out, they have a nice little Christian sermon (all of them have been converted). And as soon as the helicopter leaves again, they tear down all the Madonna pictures and hide the crosses and bring out their own religious paraphrenalia. They have another ritual, thanking their own gods for what they have just received. And go back into the jungle for a month.

So who’s using whom?

It is not extortion, or coercion, but it also is not Christian.

Christian giving is done without condition, without reward, and without recognition.
(if you receive your reward on Earth, you will not be rewarded again in Heaven)

@SherlockPoems you’re referring to a situation where the recipient of the free meal has the choice to ‘pay back’, i’m talking about situations where you’re obliged to ‘pay back’ but it isn’t made clear upfront.

I agree with you in situations like you described, but i dont think its right in situations ive described.

how do i delete this second post?
(posted by mistake, sorry)

Legally, it depends on if public dollars are involved or not. If the charity is using it’s own money to assist the poor, they can do so under any conditions they want to. But, if they accept federal or state funding to provide charitable services (and many do) then they must provide those services without the preaching.

Many good answers; just for the record I agree with NaturalMineralWater, djmuzk, and DrBill.
Preaching the gospel doesn’t have to include charitable giving, as the gospel itself is giving a message of salvation which is eternal, as oppossed to meeting some temporal needs.
Don’t misunderstand me however, it is important that we as Christians are known for generousity, helping those in need, provind for the less fortunate (I myself contribute in this way). A good time to do this is during the proclamation of the gospel, but they aren’t necessarily linked.

If the sermons and religious messages are as polite and inconspicuous as the Google ads over at the edge of this website that we all use for free, it’s not spiritual extortion or coercion.

If you have to listen to the Message before they allow you to eat, I would personally think of it more as dinner theatre – but then, I’m not in need. I bet those in dire enough circumstances to eat at a charity kitchen might be a little more psychologically vulnerable, though, especially to messages of “blessed are they who are crapped on” and “you’ll have a swell house in the sky instead of a cardboard squat after you die if you believe in Our Brand™ Religion. Gets the Stains out!” That manipulation of those in a weak position is, to me, like cigarette or alcohol ads aimed at children. It’s not cool.

So, it depends on the level of prosletyzing. And who is funding it.

I think if someone is honestly in need, they will be willing to sit through a prayer in order to get what they need.
In one way I think it’s bribery to offer food to people who are desperately hungry and then turn around and use it as a way to promote their institution, but then again if the church is taking steps to help people then I guess it’s worth it.
I guess listening to a prayer is a much better option than going hungry.

PRIVATE organizations can spend their money how ever they please. If they receive government money, that’s a more complicated story.
In the same way I don’t like the government telling women they can’t choose what to do with their bodies, I would not want them telling churches what to do with their money.

The motives that drive a company or organization do not always reflect the motive of a helper to that group. The inverse is possible, too. Do not forget it goes both ways. I mean, the person receiving donations, hand-outs, and low-cost benefits has his/her own motives and needs. If the high-rollers of the world want to impose propaganda, it is already done. However, if someone with meager living decides to open a shelter with good motives, then it might do good. It is compassion that bridges the gaps in life, economic and otherwise. I too have heard the saying, “the highway to hell is paved with good intentions.” So if a program or personal mission is going to be genuine as well as “successfull,” it needs to have real working men and women supporting and scaffolding the cause and people in need.Considering how many citizens of the world are or are close to being homeless, I think the real question is “Why don’t more of us support these kinds of causes?” Integrity is a problem, either way.

While I generally don’t dig organized religion, these aid programs are one of the things I do like about it. I look at organized religious groups like a business, and doing charity work is one of the ways they give back to the community. They’re going to proselytize just like other companies are going to plug themselves. I guess if the people who are in need truly need the help, they’ll put on a smile and listen to the sermons.

I agree there are acceptable and unacceptable combinations of charity and religion, what repulses me is when charity or aid is used as a means to get at people at their most vulnerable. Recovering alcoholics, addicts, people at the absolute lowest points of life. I’m not saying that Christians or other religious groups can’t do good for them. BUT, when they start saying that the way out of their problems is to accept their way of thinking, that’s manipulative.

Someone here previously mentioned that AA was basically a twelve step program to the pew and after reading up myself I tend to agree. It would be slightly less disturbing if other alternatives were more widely available.

@fundevogel – I know this is away from the original question but I feel I have to point out that AA is often quite spiritual but not necessarily religious. There are many atheists who are deeply involved in AA. If you go to meetings you will find some that are religious but many that are not. AA encourages belief that a higher power will help you but it does not demand that this higher power be a god or a religion, it can be whatever you feel comfortable with, the group you attend, yourself, another individual, the kitchen table, whatever. Also AA does not recruit and it does not give anything away, it is simply there if you want it. I say this because in meetings they remind you that you yourself may be the only connection to AA some people ever have so be sure that the picture you present is a correct one or else someone who would perhaps benefit greatly from the program may never find their way to a meeting because they have the wrong idea of what they will find there. Also at the end of meetings, it is always said, “Take what you like and leave the rest” – can hardly be construed as coercion.

you can’t as an atheist complete the 12 steps, they require multiple times for the 12 stepper to submit and interact with a higher power. That really doesn’t work if you don’t believe in a higher power. And it favors it the belief in a higher power over lack of belief which is why making attendance compulsory for drinking related crimes was ruled unconstitutional.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His Will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

I pulled those from the wikipedia article on 12 stepping since, for some unknown reason AA doesn’t list the 12 steps on their official site, weird, I know.

Atheists can find some higher power that isn’t God. I heard of one guy in AA whose higher power was his ashtray, of all things. (It didn’t have a drinking problem, it didn’t fail in its purpose, it didn’t abuse its family, etc.)

But mostly, yeah, it is pretty God-heavy.

@laureth , How is he doing on his sobriety?

(Haven’t heard in years.)

@fundevogel – I have known a lot of drunks who are atheists who would beg to differ with you. You apparently are basing your information on what you read in Wikipedia, I suggest you go to a couple of thousand meetings and then see what your opinion is. Your incorrect assessment of how AA works could deter someone who really needs it from going to a meeting. There are as many different meetings and ways to use the 12 steps as there are people who go. As Laureth said and I pointed out, the higher power could be an ashtray or the kitchen table, Step 3 refers to “God as we understood him.” That lets it pretty wide open as to whom your god is going to be. By the way the steps are in the official site, in the Big Book and in the general service info. AA has saved a lot of lives mine included and I am completely opposed to organized religion and still out to lunch on the whole god business.

@laureth i would really like to know how an ashtray can be a higher power. I’m not being smart, I genuinely don’t see how that could work.

@rooeytoo I’ve looked through the big book, I couldn’t find any place where it listed the 12 steps. I did read the chapter on agnostics and despite its assurances that 12 steps could works for atheists or agnostics what it actually meant was it could work if they went with it and stopped being agnostics or atheists. Chapter 4 makes it clear that faith is a requirement of the program.

”As soon as we admitted the possible existence of Creative Intelligence, a Spirit of the Universe underlying the totality of things, we began to be possessed of a new sense of power and direction.”—the big book chapter 4 page 3

“When, therefore, we speak to you of god, we mean your own conception of God”—BB [Atheism/Agonosticism doesn’t just apply to the Christian god. And it doesn’t really help me if the AA people accept any higher power I believe in, if I don’t have one to begin with.] Ch. 4 p. 4

“We agnostics and atheists chose to believe that our human intelligence was the last word, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end of all. Rather vain of us, wasn’t it” Ch.4 p. 6 [No atheist or agnostic I have ever known, read or watched, including the ones that embody ‘dangerous’ atheism to Christians, has ever claimed anything but imperfect and incomplete knowledge of the world, this is a classic example of theists misunderstanding godlessness. And it’s pretty arrogant, completely misrepresenting someone elses views and then calling them vain. Not winning me over here.] p.6

“people of faith have a logical idea of what life is all about. * [oh, do tell.] *Actually we used to amuse ourselves by cynically dissecting spiritual beliefs and practices when we might have observed that many spiritually minded persons of all races, colors, and creed were demonstrating a degree of stability, happiness and usefulness which we should have sought ourselves.” [um, a persons general outlook does not valid the authenticity of their beliefs, and I totally do all of the things the author associated with spirituality without any spirituality. This advocates, ending logical thought and I don’t see how spiritual people can claim to have a “logical thought about what life is about” if they abandoned logic to arrive there.] p. 7

“when many 100s of people are able to say that the consciousness of the Presence of God is today the most important factor in their lives, they present a powerful reason why one should have faith.” [I assume they mean peer pressure, they’re doing a pretty good job of applying it.] p. 8

I don’t really need to go on do I? This is clearly faith-centric operation.

It should be noted that in 1996 the supreme court ruled that compulsory attendance of AA of those with drinking related crimes was unconstitutional for the group’s elements of spirituality, god, prayer and proselytism. There are other, non religious groups to help fight addiction. You recovery doesn’t need to be, nor should it be dependent on acceptance of a god or higher power.

@rooeytoo whoops, I found the official 12 steps in the Big Book, the steps I reprinted are identical to those in the Big Book. from ch5 p 2–3

AA isn’t the only way to fight addiction, and since you’re suggesting my disapproval of AA could prevent alcohols from seeking help I feel obligated to point those that don’t want religious based treatment there are other options here, here, here, another one here, and over here, then there’s this one and last but not least this one . All blissfully free of proselytism .

@fundevogel – okey dokey mate, you win. I was only going on 18 years, 7 months and about 13 days of non-proselytizing personal experience. I wouldn’t dream of debating any further with someone of your great investigative ability and certainty. All of those links go back to this question though in fluther, is that a joke? My final word is still the same, if you are having probs with your life and they relate to alcohol then from personal experience I would say give AA a try regardless of your attitude towards religion, there is an AA for everyone and most don’t shove any god down your throat, god is another tool used by SOME to help to heal themselves and no AA is not the only way to heal, but it is a way that should not be disregarded because of incorrect information about its methods.

JackFright said it best…nothing in this world is free

@rooeytoo

I never said that AA couldn’t be helpful to some people, but to think of it as the end all be all of addiction treatment, or to state that it is unbiased is not appropriate or accurate.

“All of those links go back to this question though in fluther, is that a joke?”

Arg, that is annoying. No that is not intentional. I did a lot of digging, copying and pasting. I checked them all this time, apparently if you paste in the address without “http://” it just redirects to the fluther.

rational recovery
smart recovery
sober24
unhooked
kill the craving
addictionalternatives
secular sobriety

I agree that God can be useful for some to overcome addiction, but if it isn’t something someone wants to use there is no reason to participate in a treatment that depends on God when there are other resources that aren’t in conflict with personal philosophy. If it has helped you or someone you care about, I’m glad for you.

Well if your religion/belief system/theology is so hard to believe that you have to use lies and deceit to convert people, I guess you can’t really blame them.

@fundevogel – The point I am trying to make and obviously failing to do is that AA does not have to depend on god, any higher power will do and as it was said above, one person’s higher power was an ashtray. I agree, that seems a little far out to me, but some people are really out there. I am telling you the facts of what happens in meetings, not what I read on the net. I totally give up now, I can’t make it any more clear so you will have to believe what you want to.

@rooeytoo
ok, I see what you’re saying, the problem I have agreeing with that is, to me a higher power implies a supernatural being, which might as well be a god. And just to be clear, I personally don’t believe in any supernatural anything so using another supernatural being is just as unlikely to me a using god.

So the ultimate question for me is, can you have a believable, non supernatural higher power? And if you could, would it be a power that you could admit my faults to, ask to remove your faults and pray to or meditate on? Because I really can’t think of one. I think the ashtray guy must’ve just been playing the system.

It certainly is. There are churches which feed the homeless, but only after they are forced to listen to a church sermon. That is seriously effed up.

@The_unconservative_one: Yeah, but really, I wouldn’t mind sleeping through a sermon if at the end I got to fill my belly with food. I disagree with the practice, but there are worse things in the world.

@asmonet Yes there are worse things. I was just answering the question.

It’s my money, my stuff. If you want it, you get to listen to me. It works that way in business too. That’s how they “give away” all that free stuff. You have to listen to an hour lecture about that time-share deal to get the free luxury hotel stays, or sign up for the bank account to get the free toaster give away at the bank. You don’t get the goods unless you fulfill the requirement. What the question describes sounds more like some sort of communism.

Businesses and church groups can do that, @snowberry – it’s within their rights – but that doesn’t mean it’s not “spiritual coercion or extortion.” And if Communist churches and businesses (are there many such things?) give it away for free instead of making you listen to their ad pitch or sermon first, you just made Communism sound a little bit nicer.

@laureth, Hmmm— Extortion is not the right word.

This is the current definition, and a church group handing out free stuff doesn’t fit.

–noun
1.
an act or instance of extorting.
2.
Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.
3.
oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4.
anything extorted.

Nobody is taking anyone from anything. What happens is that in exchange for a little of your time, or having a pamphlet slipped into your bag, someone is giving something of value to you. That’s not extortion.

I like that the definition of “extortion” is “an act of extorting” or “anything extorted.” :)

That said, I was mostly putting it that way to quote the OP. However, there are some who would call a sermon “oppressive extraction,” as in definition 3. Of course, those people are free to stay hungry, eh?

Hey, nobody’s got ‘em tied up. They can vote with their feet any time they choose. I used to be part of a VERY oppressive religious Christian denomination. About as “coercive” (if you want to call it that) and controlling as they come. I used to think I had to stay there.

Then one day I woke up and realized that there were no chains on my feet, and no bars on the door. The only person who can give them power over you is you.

So I voted with my feet. It was the best choice I ever made.

A person who is warm and fed must surely feel it’s easy to vote with the feet. Very hungry people might not – if the only way a person can eat that day is to sit through a sermon, they will sit through the sermon. Not a whole lot of choice there, unless the choice to starve is a valid one.

Yep. Sometimes we have to make some hard choices. But I still cannot call it extortion or coercion. Our ancestors paid some very high prices to get us where we are now, for we are standing on their shoulders. Sometimes we too have to pay a price for what we believe.

Let me explain: My husband was abusive, and at church I was sidelined and mistreated because my spiritual gifts showed up differently than the way they taught. I had NO friends. I lived that way for over 25 years. Eventually my daughter and her family came to live with us, which made it 10 people and 4 generations living in the house. Everyone seemed to be at war with everyone else. You would think that such a living arrangement would be extremely stressful. But for me, it was a thrill.

You see, I had turned over all my possessions, all my relationships, my future, my present, my past, my dreams,—everything over to my Lord Jesus. I determined that since my Lord had complete control over my life, I might as well praise Him and let him handle all my problems. In return God gave me so much peace—and joy! I’d wake up in the morning grinning from ear to ear, because I couldn’t wait to see what God would do next!

The peace and joy did not leave. In fact I lived that way for about a year, so I know it’s for real.

I’m the sort of person who tries to squeeze all the juice out of every lemon that life hands me, because I know that so often it’s in the challenging times that you grow the most, so living like this didn’t bother me.

But one day I realized that I was responsible for my husband’s sin, and for the sin of the people who were mistreating me at church. I was responsible for that because I was enabling them to sin against me! I was allowing it! So I left that church.

That’s also what gave me the gumption to tell hubby it was divorce or counseling, I didn’t care which, but he’d better choose quick, or he wouldn’t get a chance. Things got worse.

He promised me that I’d never see the kids again. I knew I’d have to put my elderly father in a nursing home, and because I had only a part time job as a cleaning lady, I knew I’d likely end up in a homeless shelter until I got back on my feet. It broke my heart, but the living situation was wrong on so many levels. My husband was the type who never heard it when I’d say, “Please don’t do that to me.” or “It hurts when you say those things.” As long as I was there beside him, he assumed everything was hunky-dory.

Many nights I cried myself to sleep, not knowing what would happen, but I was at complete peace for the future. (A very strange feeling for sure)

Then one day he came to me weeping. He said, “Honey, I’m so sorry. I never realized what I’d been doing to you! Please forgive me!”

He had taken our daughter on a cruise for her graduation present, and God showed up for him on that vacation. He tells me he spent more time crying than sleeping or anything else—That ”...the scales fell from my eyes.”

Well, I told him I would forgive him, but there was NO room for backsliding. There never has been.

We have been married 33 years now. He is now the most genuine, Godly, loving, and tender person I’ve ever known. And he changed overnight. In fact, he calls it his “Damascus Road experience”. Now he’s going around talking to men’s groups telling them how to love their wives. I’ve heard him tell people that all he has to do is see a man’s wife, and he can tell by the way she carries herself how he treats her.

He writes a newsletter that goes out to hundreds of families. Over and over he tells anyone who will listen his story. Mens’ groups, Sunday school classes, and occasionally preaching on Sunday- he’ll talk to anyone who wants to listen, and they do listen.

God is there if you have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

@snowberry wow, thank you so much for sharing that! God does provide for those who love and worship Him! Your tesitmony is not proselytizing ! It came from the heart of a person who saw with their own eyes what the power of God can do in their lives.

@snowberry – I appreciate that, and I know it can be overwhelmingly hard to overcome such psychological conditioning. However, this is not about that. People who do not have enough to eat and who are cold and living on the street have their very physical survival at stake. To tell them that they have to sit through a sermon or convert to someone’s religion in order to get food, something they need to live, is very much a kind of spiritual blackmail.

I don’t see it as being very different – only less immediate – than a person holding a gun to your child’s head and demanding that you change your religion or they will shoot the child. If you refuse, your child would be dead. Yes, it’s a choice – you are free to keep your religion, vote with your feet as it were, and allow the person to kill your child dead rather than comply. However, I bet any parent who isn’t a freakish sociopath would not let their child be shot under these circumstances – they’d sit through the sermon, change their religion (whether real or not), do anything it takes to get the child out safely. Right? How is denying you or your children food unless they pray to your God any different, other than a starvation death being less immediate and less humane than just shooting them in the head?

Or a woman who encounters a rapist. Say he holds a gun to her head and demands that she stop struggling and submit to rape. She does so, in order to not die. Does this mean she has chosen to be raped, and has really consented to sexual intercourse? Does it mean that he cannot be tried for rape, because clearly she could have chosen to die instead? I say no – I say he is a rapist still, no matter that she gave in because she didn’t want to die. Choosing not to die (the life force is very strong) does not mean that you have freely chosen to be raped, and being hungry and needing food compels people to sit through the sermon to get it in the same way. It’s a choice but it is also not a real choice. (To make the food-for-sermon a real choice, offer them the ability to leave, fed, or stay to hear the sermon with a full belly. If they stay, then that’s a free choice.)

Again, I respect your decision to leave your horrible circumstances. It must have been horribly difficult. But psychological torture isn’t quite as lethal as, say, starvation. Choosing to leave an unhealthy religious situation is a lot easier when you have enough food in your belly to make it a real choice.

@laureth Such a ministry as you describe, where cold tattered people have to sit through a sermon before they’re given a coat. MMmmm. Honestly, I don’t know folks who do that what you’re talking about and if they are, they are going about it all wrong. I’ve not ever heard of such a thing. If it does happen, it won’t last long because they’ll soon go out of business, so don’t fret.

I know of- and approve of- Christian homeless shelters that require their residents to attend church, house meetings, (also drug counseling and testing if that is necessary). It’s not spiritual blackmail. It’s not coercive. It’s just what is. If you want to live there those are the rules. If you don’t want to live there, there are other homeless shelters.

Furthermore, nobody can require someone “change their religion”, as you put it. That’s against the law.

Your comparisons are like comparing apples to onions. They aren’t even in the same food group. It is not appropriate to compare a woman being quiet while being raped in return for her life with offering free food, shelter, and clothes in return for a pamphlet or a small sermon? What???? Please be realistic. The same goes for the gun analogy.

I live in a large town. I’m going to call around and ask every religious organization that ministers to the indigent and homeless and ask if they give away free clothes to people in need, and under what conditions. If I’m right or wrong, I’ll come back to this thread and report…. Deal? (It will take a little time)

Please note that I never said that about clothing, although wouldn’t have been shocked if they did clothing giveaways that way too. And while the “choosing to get raped in order to save your life” example differs in degree, it’s not in principle. Some poor, hungry folks must sacrifice their religious principles if they are to eat.

There was a recent settlement in NY outlawing Salvation Army’s proselytizing while giving out government-funded social services.

”“Our taxpayer money shouldn’t support religious indoctrination of anyone – particularly children. And no one should be subject to proselytizing because they need foster care, adoption, child care or HIV services. This settlement ensures that religious organizations may not preach to people who receive government-funded social services or discriminate against them based on their religious beliefs.”

Under the two-year settlement agreement, every government agency named in the lawsuit has adopted auditing procedures or standards of conduct to ensure that The Salvation Army does not force people in need of government-funded services to engage in religious activities, such as worship or religious instruction. The procedures and standards will also ensure that recipients of social services are not discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.”

Here’s another article: “I have spoken with a number of people who have sought assistance from the Salvation Army in the past, particularly for disaster relief. I was told of how these people were preached to and forced into praying with the Salvation Army folks to their Christian God as a prerequisite for receiving services. If you’re Jewish, tough. If you’re Hindu, tough. Gotta pray their way, to their God, or else you’re not worthy of assistance. It’s quid pro quo. Gotta take advantage of people when they’re most vulnerable. Contrast this with the secular Red Cross, which just wants to help disaster victims, not save their souls.”

As that last article says, “Sometimes just surviving the day — with food in your stomach and clothes on your back — trumps any notion of principle.”

You and I may have to agree to disagree.

@laureth, I didn’t see anything about government funded services in your previous post (did I miss it)? That would turn my stomach too, and as I said, I’m a Christian. I lived too long in an oppressive church to listen to much of that. Maybe we are closer than we think!

But the idea of comparing rape or holding a gun to someone’s head to listening to a sermon? Come on!

Have you ever been so hungry that you had to take this kind of charity?

If you can imagine being so in need, would you bow your head and pray to Odin, or the Buddha, or Ganesh, or Allah, if that was the only meal you’d get today? And tomorrow?

Remember, it’s only a little sermon.

Actually I have, quite a few times in different circumstances.

One year my husband was bit by a tick. He lost 5 months of income, and we were desperate. My Mormon neighbors stepped in and filled up our cupboards. We did get a lot of witnessing in exchange (they’re great at proselytizing). We were the only non-Mormons in town, so we were ripe for being preached to.

But I did not have to take their food. I could have said no thanks, but I didn’t. I listened to a lot of witnessing. And I survived. Nobody told me I HAD TO BELIEVE. If they had, I certainly would have said no. That’s the point I keep making. Nobody in this country can tell you you have to believe in exchange for food. If they do, they are breaking the law.

Of course, this was not government funded either.

Have YOU ever received this kind of charity?

I grew up terribly poor. Welfare, food stamps, etc. And every Christmas, some local church or other would bring by a food basket (box really) with canned goods and a frozen turkey in it, and sometimes some money. I don’t know how we got on their lists, because we sure didn’t put ourselves there.

Mom would take the basket, but as soon as the church people drove away, she’d make a big show of taking it out of the house and giving it to some other family. (We lived in a trailer park so you couldn’t not see what your neighbors were up to, most of the time.)

Long story short, she didn’t want any kind of religious aid, and went out of her way to avoid it. In part, we could do this because we had other means of support, no matter how meager. We weren’t totally without food, and she wasn’t watching her daughter (me) starve. And they didn’t ask us to pray with them or anything. So I guess the answer to your question would be “no,” and thank goodness, too.

I’m sure if starvation was imminent and she had no other choice, Mom would have taken us to hear the sermon to get a meal. At that point, you do what you need to do to live, even if that means bearing false witness. However, I’m sure the Salvation Army isn’t doing this to get a bunch of non-believers going through fake motions. They really want you to believe or else they would do something else. And while it’s their right to give their little song and dance with private funds, just like a commercial for God before the real reason for going, I still think it’s holding the proverbial food gun to the head of the hungry to get them to pray to their God. Sorry, it’s coercion.

It’s been an interesting debate. I thank you for speaking up. I think, however, that I am done here.