THIS IS ONE WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND:
WOUNDED WARRIOR ORGANIZATION CAN NOT ACCEPT DONATIONS FROM CHURCH GROUPS?????
 |
| Christian Church on a Coast, Public Domain Image by Petr Kratochvil to see other works click on: |
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=4392&picture=church-on-coast
If you can't figure the maritime connection to this concern the key words might be "independent" or "detached duty", and of course the United States Marine Corps.
Hundreds of Navy personnel have served ashore in Iraq and Afghanistan in a wide variety of positions, often augmenting the efforts of sister services. Thousands more man the air craft carrier task forces afloat in support of these operations. The Coast Guard had personnel and patrol vessels on the inland and near shore waterways of Iraq and have a contingent of shipping security specialists in Afghanistan right now assisting army logistic units with equipment to be returned to the U. S. eventually by sea going shipping containers. The Marine Corps, part of our "Department of the Navy and Marine Corps" has been in both combat zones as individuals and as entire combat and combat support units. As sea services veterans ourselves of multiple generations ranging from the Vietnam era to early Iraq , we personally know wounded warriors and are grateful that we did not become such ourselves. As retired participants in the "Tricare" military retirement medical program ,and some of us as residents in the DC general area, we utilize the medical facilities at Bethesda. There, we see and meet the wounded when we go in for treatment of the usual chronic health issues associated with old age, something that many of our former shipmates will never experience.
As warriors we were always told that we stood and fought for traditional American freedoms. Is not one of those freedoms Freedom of Religion? We understand that such freedom also includes freedom from religion for those so inclined. But when did exercising the freedom to congregate for religious purposes come to mean automatic exclusion of religious organizations from the larger community efforts of American Society?
As the American people consist of 74% members of organized Christian congregations, and 6% are Jewish and a handful of other religious affiliations, only 20% have "no religious affiliation". Having no formal religious affiliation does not automatically translate to "hostile to religion", or atheistic, or agnostic. So it has to be a very small percentage of the population that wants to lock out religious affiliated charities from national endeavors for people who certainly deserve the help of the community. It especially makes no sense when the religious organizations put no faith test whatsoever on the assistance they offer. Yet the Wounded Warrior Project recently rejected an anticipated $50,000 donation from a Christian Church group.
The "corporal works of mercy" are a requirement for those who practice the Christian faith and this concept is very close to charitable requirement of "alms" found in the Jewish and Muslim religions, and by the way there is a similar concept in Buddhism. Yet the Obama administration requires Catholic hospitals to restrict services to Catholics to avoid being taxed to support activities regarded as sinful by the church. Christians of all domination's in executing the corporal works of mercy are not to ask "are you (Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, a non believer, fill in the blank?) before rendering assistance. The only permissible and operative question is "how can we help?" Now the Wounded Warriors Project wants to eliminate the group charitable power of 80% of the American population. Many Americans pretty much limit their charitable giving to projects associated with their church. There is a very good reason for this, such projects have been vetted by an organization they trust.
Obviously the Wounded Warrior Project had nothing in it offensive to the Christian congregation that wanted to organize, fund raise, and donate. What on earth is it that the project had against Christianity? We have a government going broke over social welfare programs and at the same time doing everything in its power to shut down Christian school systems, hospitals, and charities. Now we have private charitable organizations trying to serve our veterans, wounded at least in part supposedly in defense of freedom of religion, locking out the congregational fund raising efforts of 80% of the population? How does anyone explain this illogical situation?
Has anyone asked the wounded if they object to Christian participation in the project? Freedom of religion has to include freedom to incorporate your religious beliefs into your life. That means that the religious may not be excluded from public debate, or community endeavor. Freedom of religion does not mean that you are free to congregate on Sunday, or Saturday, or Friday for a few hours of prayer and discussion of your religious, ethical, moral system and then must conform to a secular humanist orthodoxy for the rest of the week. Who made secular humanism the state religion and default ethical moral code? As we said not even all, and probably very few of the 20% who claim no formal religious affiliation want to exclude the religious affiliated from all manner of public life.
Atheist are not unknown in fox holes but those of us who have been in one can tell you they are indeed rare. If anything our troops tend to be more religious than the average of the population. We send many of these young warriors out to battle from our congregations. Now the Wounded Warrior Project tells us when they come back without a limb, or limbs, or eye sight, or hearing, or brain damage, we should butt out? We know the project has to work closely with the government. Are they that afraid of the government? Is the government that anti religion? Is in fact secular humanism now the de facto state religion?
We recognize that the Wounded Warrior Project is a private organization and under our cherished freedom of association they have every right to make their own rules. But are they really making them, or simply responding out of fear of the government whose cooperation they feel they need. If the government is that deep into the establishment of secular humanism as the de facto state creed whose orthodoxy they are willing to use coercive power to enforce, do we in fact continue to owe allegiance to this government?
As Christians we know that the wounded warriors are largely our own sons, daughters , and fellow congregants. If we must turn inward to form a new Christian or Christian / Jewish partnership to help them rather than lend our strength to the rest of the community so be it. But should we continue to send them forth at the bidding of this government? It is vital that the Wounded Warrior Project fully explain their unusual position or reverse it. Who is really anti religious here, the Project or the government? Why would the project rule out the communal financial power of our congregations, especially when the money was to go in with no strings attached, what was the problem? We need an explanation, there is more at stake here than just this project. Is this a manifestation of some government mandate or attitude that seeks to lock religious organizations out of the corporal works of mercy and alms giving and make everyone in need dependent on the government? If yes, can we in good conscience continue to offer our allegiance to such a government much less continue to offer up our sons and daughters to the military service of such a government? This rejection was a far more significant act that anyone immediately involved probably realized at the moment. We are religious, we are 80% of the population, and we refuse to leave the public life, the polling places, or bend to enforced secular human orthodoxy.
When the actions and policies of government offend the ethical/moral core beliefs of the vast majority of the population, it is imperative upon the government to reconsider in a system that does not allow a government enforced orthodoxy on ethics and morals. Freedom of religion does require an arms length separation of church and state but not an open hostility of the state towards religion and the disenfranchisement of the religious, nor the establishment by the state of a de facto non religion as the default national ethical system. With more than 90% of Americans including many who otherwise favor abortion on demand in the first trimester believing that partial birth abortion is the same as infanticide what kind of ethical system supports this practice? With religious families providing at least 80% of our people under arms, what kind of an ethical belief system requires that when wounded they be cut off from the incredible combined financial power of the religious congregations? What kind of ethical belief system pays lip service to freedom of speech but wants to exclude any religiously informed opinion from the public square? How deep into the actual enforcement of secular humanism orthodoxy is our government? It is imperative that we find out, that we find out who is responsible, and that we root them out while we may still have the ability to do it with the ballot. The refusal of the Wounded Warrior Project to accept church money illustrates all those issues.
A lead in and link to a news account is below:
"Wounded Warrior Project is refusing to accept a Florida Christian church’s money because it is “religious in nature,” Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports. Liberty Baptist Church and Academy, located in Fort Pierce, Fla., is also a K-12 school.
“We were heartbroken,” Pastor Wallace Cooley told Fox News.
It wasn’t until after Liberty Baptist Church and Academy had already paid a $100 registration fee to raise funds for Wounded Warrior Project that the they received an email from the non-profit organization.
“We must decline the opportunity to be the beneficiary of your event due to our fundraising event criteria, which doesn’t allow community events to be religious in nature,” WWP’s community events team wrote in an email. “Please note your registration fee will be refunded within the next 7-10 business days.”
SOURCES: "The BLAZE" and Fox News
No comments:
Post a Comment