Obama administration deletes religious service for student loan forgiveness

[Bubba_Switzler]

The federal government will no longer forgive student loans in exchange for public service if that service is related to religion, according to a new Education Department rule from the Obama administration.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program announced the change Jan. 31 with little fanfare, while most of Washington was focused on the new ObamaCare rule requiring religious organizations to provide free birth control through health insurance.

“Generally, the type or nature of employment with the organization does not matter for PSLF purposes,” reads the new language.

“However, if you work for a nonprofit organization, your employment will not qualify for PSLF if your job duties are related to religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing,” the announcement said. Also, the organization cannot be a labor union or a partisan political organization.

humanevents.com/article.php?id=49551

 

[agnes_therese]

I wonder why I’m not surprised.

 

[saraih]

Should people be paid by the general public for studying religion, preaching or evangelising? This is quite a hot button issue in Israel at the moment I think.

 

[Rence]

“However, if you work for a nonprofit organization, your employment will not qualify for PSLF if your job duties are related to religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing,” the announcement said. Also, the organization cannot be a labor union or a partisan political organization.

I don’t get it. Why would the government pay someone to evangelize? They can go to a non-profit organization, such as a hospital, and volunteer their time there as a nurse or a nurse’s aide, or any other service area.

What kinds of employment qualify?

Qualifying employment is any employment with a federal, state, or local government agency, entity, or organization or a non-profit organization that has been designated as tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The type or nature of employment with the organization does not matter for PSLF purposes. Additionally, the type of services that these public service organizations provide does not matter for PSLF purposes.

A private non-profit employer that is not a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC may be a qualifying public service organization if it provides certain specified public services. These services include emergency management, military service, public safety, or law enforcement services; public health services; public education or public library services; school library and other school-based services; public interest law services; early childhood education; public service for individuals with disabilities and the elderly. The organization must not be a labor union or a partisan political organization.

Generally, the type or nature of employment with the organization does not matter for PSLF purposes. However, if you work for a non-profit organization, your employment will not qualify for PSLF if your job duties are related to religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing.

 

[seekerz]

humanevents.com/article.php?id=49551

Why would the government get involved in promoting someone’s religious beliefs? I think that for some of us Catholics, it is easy to forget that the term ‘religion’ refers to a wide variety of different systems of belief which sometimes duel with each other to acquire adherents. Would we really to prefer discuss whether Catholic evangelizing activities are being rewarded at the same rate as Santeria’s?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t get it. Why would the government pay someone to evangelize? They can go to a non-profit organization, such as a hospital, and volunteer their time there as a nurse or a nurse’s aide, or any other service area.

Why would the government get involved in promoting someone’s religious beliefs? I think that for some of us Catholics, it is easy to forget that the term ‘religion’ refers to a wide variety of different systems of belief which sometimes duel with each other to acquire adherents. Would we really to prefer discuss whether Catholic evangelizing activities are being rewarded at the same rate as Santeria’s?

Why would we want the government involved in health, education, and welfare?

As Catholics we would all be better off if that were handled individually or through the Church.

Instead, what happens is that money is run through government and shorn of all moral attachment, save that of secularism.

When health, education, and welfare is shorn of all moralities competing with secularism we don’t get a free practice of Catholicism. We get an establishment of secularism as state religion.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

"Daren Briscoe, a Department of Education spokesman, said via email that "many employees at faith-based social service organizations will be eligible for the PSLF program. He added that the latest document “did not change existing Federal policy, but clarified that individuals working at religiously-affiliated non-profit organizations who perform at least 30 hours of non-religious activities are eligible for PSLF, and that, consistent with similar long-standing programs, the federal government does not subsidize explicitly religious activity.”

huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/student-loan-forgiveness-clergy_n_1261334.html

So, in truth, its not a policy change, its a clarification, and neither Obama not his administration deleted anything. But then again I’m sure its more fun for Human Events to make up sensational “news” stories than to actually report on what happens.

 

[seekerz]

Why would we want the government involved in health, education, and welfare?

As Catholics we would all be better off if that were handled individually or through the Church.

Instead, what happens is that money is run through government and shorn of all moral attachment, save that of secularism.

When health, education, and welfare is shorn of all moralities competing with secularism we don’t get a free practice of Catholicism. We get an establishment of secularism as state religion.

I don’t see any shearing off of moral attachment happening. There is nothing in what you posted that excludes service at religious institutions. It is only " religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing" which are disqualifying activities. Surely Catholics are capable of spreading the faith without expecting something from the government in return, no?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Surely Catholics are capable of spreading the faith without expecting something from the government in return, no?

I can only assume that you did not carefully read what you quoted because I suggested precisely that Catholics would be better off doing good works directly rather than sending money to the government and trying to get it back again without strings attached. No?

 

[sedonaman]

As much as I hate to say that øbama is right on any issue, he might be here. Catholics have always said that when they do works of charity, they are witnessing the Gospel.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

As much as I hate to say that øbama is right on any issue, he might be here. Catholics have always said that when they do works of charity, they are witnessing the Gospel.

I’m not sure that make Obama right, but it does make a mockery of the artificial division of secular and religious good works.

 

[joanofarc2008]

And what I would really like to know is how does a man or woman choose religious life now after going through the proper schooling when they must first pay off their debt - this seems a way of attacking vocations at their very core. Fewer Sisters and Brothers to evangelize the good news or spread social justice missions. Fewer Nuns and Monks to send their prayers to Heaven. And finally - no Priests=No Eucharist.

 

[jonbhorton]

And what I would really like to know is how does a man or woman choose religious life now after going through the proper schooling when they must first pay off their debt - this seems a way of attacking vocations at their very core. Fewer Sisters and Brothers to evangelize the good news or spread social justice missions. Fewer Nuns and Monks to send their prayers to Heaven. And finally - no Priests=No Eucharist.

Since when is it the government’s job to pay for anything religious? Doing so just gives them an excuse to stick their nose where it doesn’t belong.

One shouldn’t be going into ministry such as that with debt anyway, nor should they make more debt for themselves when they should be trusting in God to make it happen if that is where God wants them.

This move is meant to hurt religious, but it actually frees them from the bondage of government oversight.

Soetoro just did an amazing slam dunk in the wrong basket and scored us points.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

America VS Christ

Take your seats ladies and gentleman, this is going to be the quickest fight seen in a millenia!

 

[Rence]

Why would we want the government involved in health, education, and welfare?

As Catholics we would all be better off if that were handled individually or through the Church.

Instead, what happens is that money is run through government and shorn of all moral attachment, save that of secularism.

When health, education, and welfare is shorn of all moralities competing with secularism we don’t get a free practice of Catholicism. We get an establishment of secularism as state religion.

Until people are ready to not accept government funded education, welfare, health care, food stampe, wic, etc. the government will be involved in health, education and welfare. It easy to say that all this should be handled individually or through the Church, but the fact of the matter is, it’s NOT.

 

[incense]

What a tricky way to separate Catholic institutions away from the Catholic Church.

For years, the democrats have slyly used “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” in their language. What’s the big fuss right now? Obama has just decided that religious institutions aren’t really religious if they don’t primarily employee people of their religion, give services to people primarily of their religion, and the services must primarily inculcate the faith.

Now he’s telling young, vulnerable college students, to get money, you have to agree that the work you’re doing in these institutions is not religious. It’ll look good in court when he’s trying to prove they’re not religious.

So is healing the sick, feeding the hungry, taking care of the orphan, etc., are those religious acts or not? The courts have always stayed away from defining the doctrine of a church. That is interference of the state in a church. But Obama has no such qualms. He does what the courts haven’t done in over 200 years.

To trust anything he’s doing is simply foolish. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Until people are ready to not accept government funded education, welfare, health care, food stampe, wic, etc. the government will be involved in health, education and welfare. It easy to say that all this should be handled individually or through the Church, but the fact of the matter is, it’s NOT.

Of course, it is not. Long before the founding fathers the Greeks had observed the danger of people voting themselves benefits from the public purse. This is nothing new.

But I notice that you dodged the question.

The question is why should a Catholic wish his money to pass through the government instead of the Church on its way to helping the needy.

I understand why a secularist would favor that. And I understand why a secularist posing as a Catholic would prefer that.

But I don’t understand why a Catholic would prefer that.

 

[Rence]

Of course, it is not. Long before the founding fathers the Greeks had observed the danger of people voting themselves benefits from the public purse. This is nothing new.

But I notice that you dodged the question.

The question is why should a Catholic wish his money to pass through the government instead of the Church on its way to helping the needy.

I understand why a secularist would favor that. And I understand why a secularist posing as a Catholic would prefer that.

But I don’t understand why a Catholic would prefer that.

I have no opinon on whether or not a Catholic should wish his/her money to pass through the government instead of the Church on its way to helping the needy. It doesn’t matter whether they prefer it or not. Catholics who live in this country are required to pay taxes, regardless of whether they prefer to pay their taxes or not, which fund various social programs and services, and it doesn’t matter whether or not they wish to pass their money through the governemnt on its way to helping the needy. However, just because one pays taxes, which funds social programs, doesn’t mean they can’t also give money through the charity organizations of their choice on its way to helping the needy. So I don’t even understand why you are even asking the question. Living in a society, in a community, requires financing the community, regardless of whether one likes those services or not, or even if they will ever use the services or not. If a Catholic prefers their money to be shunted through a particular entity in order to care for the needy, they are certainly not prevented from doing so by paying their taxes. Jesus said it Himself: Give to Caesar what is owed to Caesar. Give to God what is owed to God.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I have no opinon on whether or not a Catholic should wish his/her money to pass through the government instead of the Church on its way to helping the needy.

Really?! That’s quite surprising. Because you certainly hold an opinion on how the government should handle the money it taken. In fact, you are not short of opinions on much of anything else.

But this is something you “have no opinion on”?

Is it because you have never thought the matter through or because you are afraid to think where it might lead?

It doesn’t matter whether they prefer it or not. Catholics who live in this country are required to pay taxes, regardless of whether they prefer to pay their taxes or not, which fund various social programs and services, and it doesn’t matter whether or not they wish to pass their money through the governemnt on its way to helping the needy.

Of course, it does matter. Setting aside the possibility of not paying taxes, Catholics can vote.

It may or may not be advisable for Catholics to vote toward policies that benefit religious service, Catholics do, in fact, have a much simpler and direct choices: to favor reducing the money that is passed to government in the first place and send that money, instead, to the Church.

I am always amused by secularist who pretend that those who hold religious values have no choice but to go along with secularism.

However, just because one pays taxes, which funds social programs, doesn’t mean they can’t also give money through the charity organizations of their choice on its way to helping the needy. So I don’t even understand why you are even asking the question. Living in a society, in a community, requires financing the community, regardless of whether one likes those services or not, or even if they will ever use the services or not. If a Catholic prefers their money to be shunted through a particular entity in order to care for the needy, they are certainly not prevented from doing so by paying their taxes. Jesus said it Himself: Give to Caesar what is owed to Caesar. Give to God what is owed to God.

So you have a definite opinion here, it seems, exactly the opinion one would expect from a secularist.

 

[Rence]

Really?! That’s quite surprising. Because you certainly hold an opinion on how the government should handle the money it taken. In fact, you are not short of opinions on much of anything else. But this is something you “have no opinion on”? Is it because you have never thought the matter through or because you are afraid to think where it might lead?

Ok, here’s what I think about your question about Catholics who don wanna pay taxes in order to pay social services because they’d rather pay it to another provider of charity: 1) One is required to pay taxes and those taxes are used to finance community based services from fixing the roads, to garbage pickup, to WIC and food stamps, etc. So it’s irrelevent that someone doesn’t wanna pay it. Living in a community, being part of a community, and taking advantage of perks that come with living in that community means paying taxes to support that community regardless of whether one likes it or not. 2) paying taxes does not prevent people from contributing to the charity organization of their choice. They just have to pay their taxes as well as contribute to the charity organization. Most people don’t have a problem doing just that. In fact, they do just that.

Of course, it does matter. Setting aside the possibility of not paying taxes, Catholics can vote.

Then lobby your lawmakers and tell them you don’t wanna pay your taxes. Lobbying me is useless because I don’t collect them, I won’t fine you for not paying them and I won’t garnish your wages for not paying them. Lobby to someone who can help you get out of paying your taxes.

It may or may not be advisable for Catholics to vote toward policies that benefit religious service, Catholics do, in fact, have a much simpler and direct choices: to favor reducing the money that is passed to government in the first place and send that money, instead, to the Church.

You’re trying to convince the wrong person

I am always amused by secularist who pretend that those who hold religious values have no choice but to go along with secularism.

They don’t have to go along with secularism, but they do have to pay their taxes.

So you have a definite opinion here, it seems, exactly the opinion one would expect from a secularist.

Well, you asked for my opinion, and you got it. Something tells me that you don’t like it though. Sorry about that. I guess we’re not always going to agree on everything…