Sauce for the Gander

Should Groups That Proselytize Receive Charitable Funds

by Tom King

ADRA Disaster Worker

Google has decided to cut charitable funding through grants to churches that "proselytize". Erwin DeLeon, the article's author says churches and religious organizations shouldn't be surprised because after all, "Aren’t churches the first ones to exclude those who disagree or challenge their beliefs and those with lifestyles they judge sinful?"

Well, no, Erwin. They aren't.

Erwin goes on to excuse Google, saying the company simply desires to "employ its technology for the greater good. And that includes disadvantaged populations and those that are discriminated against by exclusionary groups such as some faith-based organizations."  

DeLeon, seems to be saying that faith-based organizations routinely discriminate against and exclude disadvantaged populations.  Like most reporters these days, Mr. DeLeon demonstrates a staggering ignorance of the vast scope of Christian charity work. Whenever there is a disaster, it's religious-based groups like Salvation Army, Adventist Disaster and Relief Agency, Mercy Ships and the Red Cross (where do you think the cross came from) that typically show up on the scene ahead of FEMA. Christian Americans give more to worldwide relief work than the federal government and such help more often goes to the actual people who need it rather than to warlords and corrupt third world politicians as so much of US government largesse.

Christians may view some behaviors as sin, but that does not prevent us from offering aid and comfort to all people regardless of their age, race, religion, sexual preference, cultural or ethnic background. Sure we still call a sin a sin, but that doesn't mean we don't offer help to folk who need it. Our exclusion of those who differ from us is primarily self-exclusion. Why would anyone want to belong to a group that doesn't believe the way they do and which views their behavior as "sinful" unless, of course, they want to change that behavior. It's like my relationship with Greenpeace. While I may share some values with them, I don't support their organization and would not belong even though I get mail from them all the time asking me to join up and donate money.

Isn't that proselytizing of the worst sort?

And if proselytizing is a bad thing, then what about Sierra Club, The World Wildlife Federation and Greenpeace? Are you going to exclude them from receiving funds too. They do, after all, openly proselytize people to join their cause. They display bumper stickers, hold revival meetings and chant slogans in support of ideas taken largely on faith (given the recent troubles the global warming folk have had with their data lately).

Seems to me that what's sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.

(c) 2011 by Tom King 

Uncle Sam Becomes a Charity Case

Nonprofit Quarterly ran a recent article called "Weird Philanthropy: Donors Give to the National Debt".  The magazine expressed its befuddlement at the spate of donations to the federal government to help reduce the national debt. The amounts are not substantial, averaging $20-30 for the most part with the "occasional six-figure contribution. The notoriously left-leaning Quarterly wondered in its article what sort of "metrics" these donors were using to judge the effectiveness of these donations and argued that the money would just "go into the general fund" anyway.

It's fascinating how liberals say they like bigger government so long as they're hauling down nice fat grants from the fed. When their own donors start giving to Uncle Sam, though, the complaining begins, because even they realize that public philanthropies don't waste money like the government. They're likely thinking, that all that money will just get flushed down the bureaucratic crapper, when it could go to a nonprofit organization where it would actually do some good.

Recently, conservative talk show hosts, pundits and politicians have challenged pro-tax liberals saying, "If you believe the government is the best manager of welfare programs and you believe you are not being taxed enough, you can always give the amount you believe you are being under-taxed directly to the government."


Apparently, some folks are taking them up on the challenge and putting, at least a bit of their money where their mouth is. It would be bad news for nonprofits in general if the trend were to spread, but the lion's share of giving to charity seems to be coming from faith-based and conservative givers. Most of these folks, many of whom give ten percent or more of their income to charities and churches, have a less rosey view of the federal government as an efficient and effective purveyor of charitable programs and funding.

The average ten percent giver is unlikely to jump on the bandwagon on this one. The gifts to Uncle Sam up to this point appear more symbolic than substantial and given the small amounts, these folk apparently don't think they are underpaying their taxes by very much.

So, next time a pro-tax liberal tells you he is under-taxed and that he does give extra to the federal government, ask him, "How much?"

Tom King

If NASA Would Do for Space Travel, What the Military Did for the Internet

Space-X's Falcon/Dragon launch vehicle blasts off
on the way to a successful 2 orbit mission and recovery.

Back in the beginning the Internet started out as an experiment by some academics to find a way to build a durable, communication system the military could use in the event of a major war. They came up with a nifty little plan using existing communications systems, deep redundancies, easy expansion capacity and a financial incentive for the private sector to invest their own money and, voila' - the Internet rose from nothing in less than two decades to rival television, radio and every other form of communication, not by replacing them by government fiat, but by offering those media a new way to promote what they were already doing pretty well.

It's a model for effective government participation in economic development. The feds did try to "improve" the Internet a couple of times, but in every case, their "better" systems were always outdated before they could get them deployed. They were consistently out-innovated by private sector scientists and entrepeneurs working quickly, efficiently and using their own dime.

We just retired the space shuttle after more than 3 decades of service and far more than that if you count the development time. The shuttle systems were so primitive, even by the time they launched the thing the first time that soon, astronauts were taking laptops into orbit with them to supplement the stone-age technology built into the spacecraft. The shuttle flew far longer than it should have and cost lives of astronauts, arguably because NASA lacked the flexibility and systems agility to address problems. The zero-defects approach of the Apollo program soon ossified into a zero-flexibility program that ignored individual innovation and even warnings from its people about problems because the leadership came to focus on mission objectives and began to dismiss anything that got in the way.

The new systems development process became so hidebound that the agency couldn't get a replacement launch system up and running before it had to shut down the shuttle program.

Don't get me wrong.  I think the space program needed the kick start it got from NASA to get rolling. That said, I actually think we're going to do better now that they more or less have to work with the private sector.

Some writer the other day commented on private space travel saying he "...was never a big fan of the private sector." I love when people say that sort of ignorant thing. The guy's a fan of nice clothes, good food, high quality entertainment, stylish cars and the Internet, but not of the "private sector" that makes those things possible. The government has its function in doing big things that are of national interest like interstate highways, space travel and making order out of the potential chaos on the airwaves as the communications industry sprang up. The Internet is a good example of how the government did something right. They kicked off the whole thing and then got out of the way and let the free market run with it. It's a good idea for the space exploration business too.

Space-X, Elon Musk's outfit, took just four years to put together a viable cargo and manned space launch system that costs about half what the government contracted systems cost for a single launch and they are doing cargo launches this year and could do a manned launch in another year if NASA can resist the urge to get in the way. And had NASA refrained from diddling with the process and playing Kingmaker back in the 90s when they first looked at allowing private sector spacecraft development, we'd already have a system that costs half of that rate per launch.

Ironically, I believe that the more they cut NASA's budget, the faster we're going to have privately owned and funded moon bases, Mars missions, asteroid harvesting and collision protection programs. It'll actually be nice to have the capability to send some roughnecks into space to redirect an asteroid should one decide to take aim at us someday. The movie "Armageddon" while reassuring, was total fantasy. Right now, if we saw an asteroid coming there wouldn't be anything we could do about it with the hardware we have.

The Book of Revelation describes a large object falling from the sky and crashing to Earth in the sea at the end of time. I 'spect Bruce and the boys ain't gonna make it to space in time to do anything about it. Thank you NASA (and I'm being sarcastic here) for dragging your feet and helping insure that the apocalypse arrives right on time!

Tom King