Thank for saying what needs to be said. There are millions of Americans of faith who spend a good part of their lives selflessly helping others.
I would add that the groups who call themselves Christian, who also happen to be the core of Bush support, have monopolized the name and given "faith" a bad name. This approach may aid in putting them in their place. Transparency would greatly help flush out the corruption and give needed boosts to real programs that work.
Democrats have controlled the churches for years...still, God has not returned as promised.
nuff said.
Mark me down as somebody who thinks this is an idea better flushed down the toilet, maybe double-flushed just to make sure its gone.
The introduction (and validation) of what amounts to a "faith department" is one of the screwiest most boneheaded ideas I have seen in my life. Whether Bush did it first doesn't matter: Obama should eradicate this rot before it spreads. This manipulation of peoples religious fantasies for political purposes is different than the usual crass government action -- empowering people to think their fantasy world now has the official stamp of approval will cause them to grab more and more power, more and more 'authority' until we will very quickly find ourselves living in a full-blown religious state run by nut-cases answering to imaginary beings only they can 'see' and answer to.
What is particularly disheartening is to see otherwise reasonable people EAGER to embrace this lunatic idea of a faith based government appendage simply because it might be economically expedient and will help cover gaps in what the damn government should be paying for and doing in the first place.
Keep the believers and their fantasies in their place, let them enjoy the government support they already have: the already heavily subsidized tax-free shelters called 'churches' and 'houses of worship'. If it were up to me, I'd pull their tax-free status in a heartbeat.
Keep the believers and their fantasies in their place...
Certain elements on the left need to get over their hostility toward religion. It is counterproductive and it is intolerant.
SB - your comment about the people on the left that do not believe in religion was counterproductive and intolerant of their views.
SB,
I'm not hostile to religion. I grew up Southern Baptist but now I'm an deist and don't believe in religion.
Why should my money and that of many atheists in our country go to faith-based groups? Moreover, you should read about how this system has been thoroughly abused in Africa and you might change your mind.
I also went down to Mississippi just after Katrina and can tell you that the religious aid groups did much good, but they were even more disorganized than FEMA. For example, I counted 14 different aid groups giving out food and sundries to whoever wanted it. I watched people drive from one aid organization to another and fill their cars up beyond any need.
This is essentially a vote-buying scam by Obama to attempt to take religion back from Repubiclans.
Maybe some religious folks need to get over themselves having so much public power. And how about this fact: in a recent poll 57% of Americans, including people of all religions, doubt the existence of God and go through the motions at religious services. So if those who go to church are lukewarm, then don't force your faith on me.
And by damn don't waste my tax dollars on this crap. How about we use it to pay of the national debt? Or at least start doing so.
well, i can't get behind this idea. i think it was a bad program and was badly administered by the Bush folks.
i think yes, many church and community programs offer valuable work to many in need. why not expand the tax credits to individuals who donate to these kinds of programs instead? might make them give more or start some giving.
SB - your comment about the people on the left that do not believe in
She said hostility toward religion.
While I'm not religious and a bit uncomfortable with "my" tax dollars going to religious charities, I agree many of them are on the front line of some pretty tough times. As long as the money is used to help, without prejudice, the hungry, etc. I'm ok with it.
Perhaps part of the problem is the troubles don't seem come to light until after the money is spent. Maybe a 3rd party non-governmental organization with a system of audited draws might help.
I hate to say it but I have to disagree with you here. I can't get behind any proposal that gives tax dollars to religious organizations. Tithing is a form of worship and so as far as I can tell taxes going to churches is forced tithing and a violation of the free exercise of religion.
And unfortunately, he's making an impossible promise when he says "religious organizations would not be allowed to use taxpayer funds to proselytize." Let's say a church was planning on spending 10K on fighting gay marriage and 10K on feeding the hungry. If the government comes along and gives them 10K to feed the hungry, then the church is just going to say "great, now we can devote 20K to fighting gay marriage." When you give money to someone or some group, you can't truly put restrictions on it's use, because the reality is whatever you're paying for just means it's that amount more of their own money they can spend on something else.
It's obvious churches do a ton of good in the real world.
But it's also obvious that federal funding of religious activity is a direct violation of the separation of church and state.
It's the same reason we don't tax churches, after all...
But it's also obvious that federal funding of religious activity is a direct violation of the separation of church and state
yes, which is why Obama specifically stated that NO religious activity could take place, or else these organizations could not get grants.
Community faith groups feed and house the poor, provide healthcare, support worker justice, aid immigrants and refugees, promote peace, and do a gazillion other things that the government can't, won't, or no longer does. It is silly to shut them out of the process.
The churches do it because they believe God has told them to take care of the poor. So in doing so, they are practicing religion and in a small way they are preaching to the people they serve.
SB--
It has been my experience that atheist have a huge problem with this.
You know my one of my former best friends who lives a street over from you...E.M? He quit talking with me because he was furious I worked with religious groups to get more money for TennCare.
He hates religion so much, that (I think) he saw me as selling out...even though I did help get a lot more money for the uninsured, then if I had not worked with some religious leaders, and not gotten the extra money. The religious leaders were a BIG help in getting more money for TennCare and I am deeply grateful to them. I don't care why they don't want poor people to die from not being able to pay 10 dollars fo rblood pressure medicine, I just care about them not wanting the poor to die for the "sin" of being poor.
But I'm the sellout. In this situation, I'll proudly wear that label if it helped save one life.
Your point is spot on.
Sharon,
Doesn't a bit matter to you that this is against our Constitution? And, again, since I'm not a person of faith, the taxes I pay should not go to forwarding your religious viewpoint. It is Un-American and should be stopped no matter how much "good" it does. Where the heck is old Thomas Jefferson when you need him?
Sharon,
My apologies as your post isn't exactly what some of us are against. It is handing out tax dollars to do charity work. Not some religious folks defending TennCare. That sounds like the spirit of Christ in action to me.
I would prefer he gave the money to daycare-based groups or meals-on-wheels-based groups of any religious stripes, rather than faith based groups who have good programs.
I mean to say, give them the money, sure, just take the faith out of the government side of it.
I think I'm confusing myself. Never mind.
I really don’t see why anyone would have a problem with this.
if you were a hard core atheist like me, you would. we get none of this money, ever. and in terms of 'forcing,' well, there are many degrees of that, and only atheists like me perceive it.
Casey,
I believe in the separation of church and state, but I also believe religious organizations should practice what they preach.
With that in mind, I think more of the responsibility should fall on churches and synagogues and mosques and other religious organizations that base part of their faith on feeding the poor, helping the sick, etc.
Here's my solution to it. Since the organizations are tax exempt, they should lose their tax exempt status if they don't do what they say their religion says they should do.
Conversely, those who want to play a bigger part in helping the needy, should be encouraged not discouraged.
Are you familiar with Father Charles Strobel? He started 'Room In The Inn' here in Nashville, and I think it could be a model for the entire country on sheltering and feeding the hungry and homeless.
The real short version of what he started is he got churches and synagogues to house the homeless during winter in the evening, give them dinner and send them off in the morning with breakfast. It's not perfect, but it keeps a lot of people from freezing and going hungry. Imagine if all churches did this. Most churches aren't using their facilities during the night, so why not let the homeless sleep in an area of a church and have volunteers make the donated food for them?
So take away the tax exempt status from religious groups who don't help, and encourage those who do.
if you were a hard core atheist like me, you would. we get none of this money, ever.
Sure you do. There are plenty of federal grants that go to non-faith based groups. No one is saying that faith based organizations should replace the secular ones. It's in addition to, not instead of.
Sharon,
You reminded me of one of the reasons I left church. It was a Wednesday night Church dinner. The type most Baptist, and I'm sure other, churches use to do on a regular basis. It struck me that we only used our large kitchen one night a week to feed people who didn't need it, except for the nice communion with each other.
I shared my thoughts with the other ten our so people at my table. I asked if our Lord would leave people cold in street and with empty stomaches while churches remained empty. The entire table was shocked. An older woman whom I had respected previously patted my hand and said "Oh Casey, that is why we give to the downtown rescue minsistries, so we can direct them there and keep our church clean."
I just don't see any Christ in most churches. Call me bitter at this point, but most see to me to be what Christ called "White washed sepulchres." So many churches are nothing but social organizations, and political ones, that don't deserve tax exempt status.
Oh the hot dog nitrates are wafting thorugh the air... My first cold beer is nearly empty. The friends are soon to be here. So it's time for fun.
AND A SAFE AND COMFORTABLE FOURTH TO ALL SERVICE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD IN HARMS WAY RIGHT NOW. REGARDLESS THEIR RELIGION, OR LACK THERE OF.
SB,
I know you ignore Terry Frank, but I thought you might enjoy my retort to her usual "Independence Day belongs to Christians" bs.
http://terryfrank.net/?p=3427#co...#comment-
120525
So, you want to use State power to coerce people just because they claim to belong to such-and-such a faith?
Maybe "religious organizations" should "practice what they preach", but I don't recall reading about that in the COTUS.
KEEP CHUCH AND STATE SEPARATE!!!!
Period. No. Ifs. Ands. Or. Buts.
yes, which is why Obama specifically stated that NO religious activity could take place, or else these organizations could not get grants.
That's an unenforceable proposition. If you have $10 and are going shopping to make dinner, and then I give you $5 and say you can ONLY spend it on spices, what that means in reality is that you now have $5 dollars of you own money that you no longer have to spend on spices and can put towards something else. When you give money to a person or an organization, you are necessarily giving to EVERYTHING they spend money one. There is no way around that.
These plans are forced tithing, and a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
But it's also obvious that federal funding of religious activity is a direct violation of the separation of church and state
yes, which is why Obama specifically stated that NO religious activity could take place, or else these organizations could not get grants.
"No religious activity can take place..." This doesn't seem like it is enforceable. Besides, just choosing which religious groups get government money and which don't constitutes a form of state religious activity. And saying that NO religious activity can take place is in direct opposition to the core nature of religious groups.
It is a really bad road to go down...
Commenting by HaloScan
