until it's used to keep people apart in "mandatory religious programs"
That said, I really despise hypocrites and the biggest ones I can see today are Prosperity Gospel preachers and that Evangelical voting block that support the "good christian" in office today. I have no problem with faith and churches, but when they start getting political or taking advantage of the needy then they've got to go. Lastly, it's getting a bit weird with religious institutions fighting against women's health organizations - and that discussion is a pile of snakes so let me just say I understand where both sides come from and don't really care to discuss the topic.
It is highly likely that the religious institutions you're thinking of aren't these partisan televangelists or con-men but those guys have left a sour taste in my mouth for religious institutions in general - I default to spurning and distrusting them until I've seen an organization act in a beneficial and ethical manner. I trust them more slowly then I trust secular charities.
But that's not what was happening, right?
> I have no problem with faith and churches, but when they start getting political
I disagree with the notion that religion must be a private matter. Religion is not only a matter of personal belief. Its a framework for organizing communities and raising children. Forcing people to keep religion private amounts to an infringement on "the free exercise thereof."
Notably, religion in the U.S. has always been political. Many of the original colonies were founded by religious people who were too radical for Europe. They didn't create a Constitution where the right to "free exercise" implied banning the very religious communities they had come to America to establish. Rather, religion has always been a part of peoples' politics. It played an outsized role in everything from abolition to women's suffrage to the civil rights movement.
> Boise said it does not issue citations if the city’s three homeless shelters are full. The plaintiffs said that the two Christian-based shelters have policies to never turn away anyone for lack of space, and so police have continuously enforced the ordinances. > > The 9th Circuit noted that those facilities could still refuse to shelter homeless people who exceed limits of the number of days they can stay or who object to mandatory religious programs.
As to your other point
> I disagree with the notion that religion must be a private matter. Religion is not only a matter of personal belief. Its a framework for organizing communities and raising children. Forcing people to keep religion private amounts to an infringement on "the free exercise thereof."
That's fair, it definitely needs to be a balance, it's my opinion that things like Prosperity Gospel not being outright illegal and pundits like Pat Robertson are good examples that it has gone too far, but I definitely see and understand concerns about going too secular. I'm privately faithful and secular in nature, but that's just me and I understand that other folks have their own understandings of faith and religion.
Directly? No.
"If there is a homeless shelter open, we can cite and jail you for sleeping outdoors".
"But one of the shelters has a policy of always being 'open', even if there are no beds. They also require mandatory religious activity and participation."
"If there is a homeless shelter open, we can cite and jail you for sleeping outdoors".
Is a fairly strong indirect link.
Other places in the US, you mean. They have done this elsewhere, they call it socialism.
If person A takes from person B by coercion to give to person C because person D voted for it. Neither person A nor person B nor person D can claim to be engaging in charity.
Charity is voluntary giving.
That said, a better example is that 'socialist' countries seem to give less to charity for those abroad. The biggest donating countries per capita are Myanmar, the USA and Australia, the most likely to help strangers appear to be Iraq, Libya and Kuwait. Even in Europe, it's topped by the UK which, while it is in possession of a social safety net, I would not call Socialist.
Mississippi and Alabama need religious services because religious people suffocated the government. I'd much rather be poor in San Francisco and enjoying public services than be poor in Mississippi hoping for religious services.
It’s not really voluntary, which brings in the question of if it’s really charity.
> I'd much rather be poor in San Francisco and enjoying public services than be poor in Mississippi hoping for religious services
Which public services do you think SF has that aren’t available in Mississippi? I think you’ll find that the real difference is tolerance of homelessness in general and programs that allow continued drug use while receiving benefits.
(Notably, it’s not like less religious places have devised secular replacements for religious charity. As a percentage of income, people in San Francisco donate just half of what people in Alabama and Mississippi do.