[cryptic.paintball]

Indiana Family & Social Services Administration hired pastor Michael Latham, a baptist minister at a salary of $60,000 a year, paid with revenue from state taxpayers.

His job description states he serves as the chaplain for the FSSA and functions as a staff advisor on all things spiritual. He also serves as the director for policy, procedures and communication efforts on faith-based services.

Some of his duties:

* Ministering & counseling FSSA employees, contractors, etc to connect with compassion with serving FSSA clients. (no issue there with me)

* Developing a statewide network of ministers to serve as liasons on information related to religious services & faith-based community involvement.

* Developing workshops to "train & educate" FSSA staff encouraging a faithful environment in the workplace.

* Preparing & presenting faith-based services at statewide stakeholder meetings, and for legislators and service providers.

This is a complete waste of tax dollars on an inherently religious program, of course this goes against church & state. Paying a member of clergy with tax based dollars to establish faith-based programs violates our seperation of church & state.

There is a lawsuit to stop this seeking to stop the state from funding, creating or maintaining religious, tax based programs like this.

[QuantomToast]

Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball

Indiana Family & Social Services Administration hired pastor Michael Latham, a baptist minister at a salary of $60,000 a year, paid with revenue from state taxpayers.

His job description states he serves as the chaplain for the FSSA and functions as a staff advisor on all things spiritual. He also serves as the director for policy, procedures and communication efforts on faith-based services.

Some of his duties:

* Ministering & counseling FSSA employees, contractors, etc to connect with compassion with serving FSSA clients. (no issue there with me)

* Developing a statewide network of ministers to serve as liasons on information related to religious services & faith-based community involvement.

* Developing workshops to "train & educate" FSSA staff encouraging a faithful environment in the workplace.

* Preparing & presenting faith-based services at statewide stakeholder meetings, and for legislators and service providers.

This is a complete waste of tax dollars on an inherently religious program, of course this goes against church & state. Paying a member of clergy with tax based dollars to establish faith-based programs violates our seperation of church & state.

There is a lawsuit to stop this seeing to stop the state from funding, creating or maintaining religious, tax based programs like this.

My opinion on this is the same as yours so ill just say...agreed

[animal70X7]

You don't have separation of church and state. Show it to me in the Constitution. You have Constitutionally guaranteed freedom OF religion.

[cryptic.paintball]

Originally Posted by animal70X7

You don't have separation of church and state. Show it to me in the Constitution. You have Constitutionally guaranteed freedom OF religion.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... Commonly referred to as the speration of church & state.

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times. The first instance was in 1878.

Now I see you attempted to spin the topic on word play. Not a very good attempt at doing so either. I recommend you stick to the topic at hand or perhaps you can move along. Thanks.

[RamboPreacher]

what he believes, seems to already be an established religion. where is the state trying to establish a religion by hiring a religious person? is this a state/gubbamint job, or a job in a system that is partially funded by the state?

[Derr]

Yeah, this is not ok.

[girl from the gym]

On one hand I'm saying to myself "Eh, if the employees of FSSA requested/showed a desire for him to be there, wheres the problem?" On the other hand I'm saying "Is the decision really up to them to spend the taxpayers money in such a way?" Not sure what side I'm on fully, so I guess I'll leave those points for you guys to consider.

[bannedbi slaughter]

pretty messed up.

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by bannedbi slaughter

pretty messed up.

probably. but I want to know more about it so I can decide for sure and all I know about it is from the OP.

[bunkerbuster68]

i dont want my cash monies to be spent like that

[welfare_train (Banned)]

Should be spent on education, not hibbiddy jibiddy.


I do have a legit question though, how do ministers usually get paid? Is it strictly through donation money?

[Adema3412]

Original article?

[cryptic.paintball]

Here is the filing:

http://www.ffrf.org/news/2007/indianalegalcomplaint.pdf

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

Original article?

still looking for info as well.

Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball

Here is the filing:

http://www.ffrf.org/news/2007/indianalegalcomplaint.pdf

interesting reading, but tells me nothing about the funding issue/question I raised.

[cryptic.paintball]

Since the original article came from a periodical I cannot just post a link to it. Search the Indiana funding. I am sure you will find the information if you look hard enough...

[PB&S]

It is common and nothing new for the state/gov to higher religous leaders for their staff.

Example: Military Chaplians.

If you have an issue with IFSSA then maybe you should say something about the chaplians in the military who get paid around 6 figures a year, plus free health care, free travel worldwide and living expense all on the taxpayers dime.

[cryptic.paintball]

Originally Posted by PB&S

It is common and nothing new for the state/gov to higher religous leaders for their staff.

Example: Military Chaplians.

If you have an issue with IFSSA then maybe you should say something about the chaplians in the military who get paid around 6 figures a year, plus free health care, free travel worldwide and living expense all on the taxpayers dime.

Their job details:

1. A clergy person in your denomination or faith group.
2. Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army.
3. Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.


They are not pushing a singular religious group, plus they can be used in active duty roles other than just chaplain. I dont think they are needed to be honest, but you have to pick and choose your battles. Getting rid of the army chaplain is never going to happen any time soon. Plus the military does provide equal coverage in other religious denominations.

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by PB&S

It is common and nothing new for the state/gov to higher religous leaders for their staff.

Example: Military Chaplians.

If you have an issue with IFSSA then maybe you should say something about the chaplians in the military who get paid around 6 figures a year, plus free health care, free travel worldwide and living expense all on the taxpayers dime.

you beat me to it. I had hinted at this earlier as they are not "establishing" a state religion.

as for funding, I saw many budget worksheet reports etc, but was still unable to determine where the funding comes from (it also appears that there are more than one chaplains funded)

[PB&S]

Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball

Their job details:

1. A clergy person in your denomination or faith group.
2. Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army.
3. Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.


They are not pushing a singular religious group, plus they can be used in active duty roles other than just chaplain. I dont think they are needed to be honest, but you have to pick and choose your battles. Getting rid of the army chaplain is never going to happen any time soon. Plus the military does provide equal coverage in other religious denominations.

It is spelled chaplain isn't it? Oops...

Good points though. I see the difference.

Anywho the chaplains I know of in the armed services are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and I think there are now 2 or 3 Muslim. Anyone know of any others?

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by PB&S

It is spelled chaplain isn't it? Oops...

Good points though. I see the difference.

Anywho the chaplains I know of in the armed services are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and I think there are now 2 or 3 Muslim. Anyone know of any others?

I only know of the ones you mention. I don't see the difference, though. we don't know if the Indiana chaplain doesn't follow the same or similar guidelines.

[Rev_Shocker]

Originally Posted by PB&S

It is spelled chaplain isn't it? Oops...

Good points though. I see the difference.

Anywho the chaplains I know of in the armed services are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and I think there are now 2 or 3 Muslim. Anyone know of any others?

There is a push to have a Wiccan chaplain, plus later in the story they detail how many other faiths have chaplains in the Army. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._wiccan24.html

See you in the middle!
Rev. Jason Geer