You get food/healthcare/education so long as you convert to the faith and take your orders from the top.

The department of faith based indicatives needs to be eliminated.

Please scroll down and read this part:

As often used, “Catholic social justice” infers that the Catholic Church founded, defines, was and is the leading proponent of the movement. Yet there is nothing particularly “Catholic” about the concept of altering institutions to better serve the common good. And compared to other faith traditions, the Catholic Churh is a johnny-come-lately in supporting equitable access to the benefits of society. In fact, our American ideal of social justice comes from our British Protestant tradition.

Quaker founder George Fox (1624-1691) encouraged fellow congregants to stop owning slaves. His friend, William Penn (1621-1670), was founder of the Pennsylvania Quakers who, by 1696, officially declared their opposition to the importation of enslaved Africans. Along with the Anglican, Granville Sharp, Quakers established the first recognized anti-slavery movement in Britain in 1787, whereas Pope Pius IX declared as late as 1866 that it was not contrary to divine law for slaves to be sold, bought or exchanged.

Quakers were also pioneers for human rights, women’s equality, prison and criminal law reform, and reducing poverty. In 1839, Pennsylvania passed a law enabling public schools to provide instruction in German, at the time the language of the largest group of immigrants.

These reformers lived their beliefs.

Rome has NO monopoly of humanitarian ideals.

Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2013, 05:40 PM - Edit history (2)

I agree, along with all its faults, such as the 'worthy poor' rather than total equality. And I have Quakers in my family. It is a different mindset. But with the First Amendment and many who went to RCC schools growing up, they are going to support this. We can't get through by attacking with anything but the facts.

I say, no tax dollars. If the followers believe in social justice, they will support it. Perhaps that doesn't take into account groups that are truly impoverished - a major hole in what I'm suggesting. I believe leaders and the public have decided to let the error of requiring faith for benefits continue as a mercy to the poor through the doctrine of Christ as generally understood by liberal believers.

We know that RCC priests in Latin America died to protect the poor and that liberation theology has been roundly condemned by the RW, but we still have Nuns on the Bus. These people were tortured and butchered by RWer right along with their flocks. Their deaths are often marginalized, but they were real people, like Bonhoffer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonhoffer

Definitely not the hateful thumpers we hear like Fischer here. They are a disgrace and RW political hacks. Bonhoffer was executed 23 days before Germany was liberated by the Allies, a great loss to religion, IMHO.

We know that the Kennedys and Kerry and many union, public workers and others are members of the RCC. Pedophilia did not make them leave, not all who attended were molested. The outrage isn't universal, but it is richly deserved for all that can proven to have been involved, and there are plenty of facts to cite.

I regard most of the abuse to be a matter of social class and covering up to protect the powerful as in the Sandusky case. The history of authoritarianism is not confined to the religious organizations, but damn if they did not employ most of it to sustain governments with the divine right of kings and all that. The Penn State case was not about religion at all, but it was the same animal, the rich abusing the poor for their pleasure - many who don't believe in God do this too - look at the world of pedophilia, sex trafficking and all of that. It's a mindset that does not regard people as humans but things to be used and discarded. So much sickness here on Planet Earth, it's been with us all the time. People look for means to escape it and take many routes.

My real issue is that if they take money from non-believers, they are commiting a crime by discriminating against non-believers by making them obey or live by their church beliefs. The US$ is not a verse of scripture.

Those spending secular government monies should be forced to obey the EEOC and other laws the government passed. If they don't, they are extorting us who don't believe, and that makes them more powerful than a democratic government. I won't pull out the definition of fascism by FDR, but that is part of it. When the world is too hurtful to bear, many people return to religion, traditional ones or new ones or just cults. Look at the gun communes being suggested. Not about religion altoegther, but a cult - banding in a group to survive a percieved threat.

Churches have outlasted many governments, and have conspired with RWers to overturn democratic ones. But I consider the crime to be the RW angle, not their view of reality.

I believe that is a universal right, to have one's own view of reality, so long as it is not forced on others who cannot possibly see things that way. Our neurology affects what we believe, but some is from socialization, intellect and education. In most cases, faith steps in where facts are not known or one is tired of thinking.

Marx commented on religion as the opiate of the masses. He did not say treligion should be eliminated, but it was a comfort allowing people to go through an unbearable reality. But only a step on the way to liberation, not as an argument to not evole. I call faith, the fuggitaboutit zone of state of being. One day a person has a Eureka moment and decide they are moving on. But I'm not the boss of anyone but me, and I'm unwilling to be, do or say what I don't believe.

If anyone is duly offended by this ramble, let me and I'll delete.

Discrimination against people recieving the aid is part and parcel of that. It's not just the Catholics getting this money, it's fundamentalist Protestant groups as well.

Some red areas have handed their drug and other mitigation (waivers for jail) programs over to faith-based groups. If the person is not deemed by them to have 'been saved' or sufficiently enthusiastic about the religion being offered, they are discharged from the program and sent back to court to serve their sentence.

Some young people have committed suicide. Boot camp deaths run by these groups have been reported. Corrupt judges and legislators who want to punish them because of their beliefs or money they make, allow this to happen. It is a filthy thing, to force one to lie to live.

They are making people lie about what they believe. Historically, conversion to different religions have not all been by persuasion, but by force. This creates great suffering for people of conscience. Not all are going to ever believe what they are pushing on them.

Their First Amendment right of freedom of religion or freedom from religion, is being violated for the people profiting from these arrangements. It is probably against the UN human rights code to do this, but we let these guys get away with by abusing the First to favor religion at all costs.

It's not much different from madrassas where kids are forced to recite the Koran. This has gone on for years around the world, but our secular social democracy has been particularly vulnerable. Religion is being forced on people, and it's wrong.

I hate this. They've taken so much money, they may overthrow secular government altogether. At least that's what we see in Louisiana and other areas. This is coming out of many churches, not just the RCC.

The media has muddied the minds of Americans to let them do it. It's very hard to fight back against this and the GOP has captured most of this voting block.

revenue it would go further. Much of the artwork is priceless and you can't really put a value on it. Keeping it in places like the Vatican or Cathedrals makes them museums more or less.

It's actually in violation of the Constitutional separation of Church and State. There were actual Catholic charities who didn't want government assistance because they didn't want any strings attached to the money that might come with it. There was a faction of us here on DU who felt private charities, including the Catholics should get their funding by begging for it the old-fashioned way, from the private sector. Taxpayers' money should not be used for it.

Now, to tell the truth, when I see Sister Simone on TV talking, she seems very liberal. Her organization even got into trouble with the Vatican for being too liberal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/21/sister-simone-campbell-vatican-us-nuns_n_1442301.html

It also seems that maybe that money is going to people who actually need it instead of military spending and tax cuts for the rich. I am truly torn today about this issue. Ideologically, I'm against it, but the practical side of me says at least some needy people are getting help through selfless Catholic workers like Sister Simone.

to people in need of help. I have never seen preaching. I have never seen anyone asked what their religion is or even if they are Christians, or believers.

I am rather shocked and surprised at the amount of government money going to them, but I have seen none of the proselytizing or prejudices that are referred to in this article. And if it continues the way that I have seen it work, I don't really have a problem with it. Start preaching, help only "good Catholics" or people who will listen to the drivel, and I have a real problem.

Why should they get all the services and pay none of the bill.
GOD provides for them, why can't THEY provide for their society.