About Faith-Based Initiatives...

If you want to skip my personal angst, just go to THE QUESTION posted at the bottom

I posted an OP in GD about today's hearing on President Obama's executive order regarding the revised function of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships; my OP called attention to a House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties hearing Faith-Based Initiatives taking place today (11-18) at which Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be speaking to concerns of AU regarding issues of Church/State separation which AU feels remain unresolved by the president's executive order. For those interested, the link to the hearing (10:30 a.m., EST) is here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html

I headed for bed, but sleep would not come as poster Random Thoughts had raised some debate which proved fodder for a mental conversation which was keeping me awake. So; a poll of DU (and I know everyone hates polls, but still...).

The partnership of Government with religious institutions via tax funding of faith-based initiatives is a complicated question for me, and I find myself going back and forth on the issue. For transparency's sake: I am a Christian, a firm believer in Church/State separation (religion out of politics/politics out of religion) and I am fully convinced that America was not intended as a Christian Nation, nor should it ever be so.

How do DUer's feel about Federal funding of faith-based initiatives? I believe that social services are the role of government, but I also realize that many religious institutions are so situated to provide relief, and for less cost, than often is the case with government. Still; the theocratic overtones of much of what is occurring in our current socio-political atmosphere makes me increasingly nervous about placing emphasis upon religious groups as providers of relief. And yet, I want to see those in need clothed, fed, and helped with housing, job placement, addiction help, etc.

THE QUESTION: How do you feel about your taxes going to fund faith-based initiative programs?

Addict says he needs the money to pay his rent, so you loan him the money. he uses the loaned money to pay the rent, so he can use HIS money for drugs.

Churches have always used part of their incomes for "good deeds". Government money given or via no-tax benefits gives money as long as the churches do not use it to "preach"..


church "earns" 100K from fund-raising & bake sales:P:..
church normally gives $5k in donations & aid to the poor
net left over for "preaching"= $95K

church gets $5k donation from govt...
church uses that $5K for donations to poor
net left over for preaching= $100k

you're in SoCal and I'm in NorCal, and what the heck are we both doing up this late/early? :D

I'm off to bed; I'll check this poll later. :hi:

EDIT: spelling impaired at this hour.

have a nice snooze:)

in the paranormal just as anyone with a mental illness should have access to medical care.

My question is about the funding of faith-based initiatives with taxpayer money.

...do it ourselves, and impose "government - level" auditing. The government should not be tied to any religious or other group, nor should we taxpayer/citizens have to trust that some non-government agency is properly using our tax dollars.

I'm all in favor of faith-based social programs. I think it's wonderful that people come together to help others.

But we must not become complacent in assuring that our government provides every citizen a path to obtaining the basic necessities and opportunity to learn.

Faith-based charities are exactly that - charities. The recipient of the charity is chosen by the charity, not the government responsible for all citizens. Donations to a charity might dry up.

A well-meaning and historically successful charity can be gone in a day if there is a large financial penalty imposed for misconduct by persons within the charity.

Madison said something to the effect that if all men were angels we wouldn't need government. That seems to have relevance here.

(edited for spelling/grammar)

:hi:

If a church is well-suited for an individual contract, they should form a 501c-3 as an entity separate from the church and go for it. We shouldn't just give money willy-nilly to churches, though.

the worthiness criteria. (Isn't this really all about contracting out the government role of assistance to the poor?)

First, government has to set up a systematic method by which they distribute the aid money. So, in effect government official are making determinations on which religions are worthy of the aid money and which are not worthy. For instance, Catholics have been doing charity work for centuries and they get the money, but Islamic centers that have not been around as long, don't get the money. There has to be some criteria of distributing the aid money and this worthiness test can lead to discrimination or support for one religion over the other. With corrupt government officials, this could lead to some very serious preferential treatment to one religion over another.

Second, religious organizations have to set up a systematic method by which they distribute the aid to the needy. Now, religions have some peculiar ideas of who is needy and who is not. For example some religions look down on single mothers. So, they are not likely to give aid to single mothers. Some religions find alcohol to be evil. So, they will not give aid to those who drink alcohol. It can get even more detailed with some religions requiring church affiliation and other religious requirements in order to be worthy of the aid money.

I think government officials are better at determining who is worthy on an individual bases because they are usually constrained by laws, policy and stringent oversight. Of course corrupt government officials are going to be bad at everything they do.

I just saw a west wing rerun where the GOP wanted $115,000 to study faith based healing.
Bartlet and crew think about it, but turn down the offer..

Now faith based healing is cutting edge..

The 'faith community' is the source of the vast majority of bigotry toward GLBT people in this country. Chruchs also remain startlingly segregated by race. They are heavy into divisions and differences, judging others, and sneering at love.
To me, the chruch is apostate, and the opposite of all I stand for. God is love, and the church hates love. That should be all anyone needs to know about those businesses with crosses on top.

and since they apparently operate tax free, I guess that answers the question

I'm an atheist. A strong atheist. And, yet, one of my regular donations goes to the Union Gospel Mission in Saint Paul, MN. I realize that there is a religious message attached to their assistance to the homeless, but, their dedication to material help to homeless people in providing housing, help locating employment, and other factors makes them stand out. I've checked the place out thoroughly, and they're doing what is by far the best job of serving homeless people in the area.

They include a religious message in their program. I figure that people can decided for themselves whether or not to take that message to heart. They don't discriminate on the basis of religion in offering help to homeless people, though. It doesn't matter. They serve everyone they can, and do an excellent job of it.

So, I donate to them on a regular basis. Not because of their religious basis, but in spite of it. I donate because they are serving. I'll leave it to the people they serve to decide whether the religious message is worthwhile.

Now, that's a private donation, not one from tax dollars. That's a different issue.

organizations are fairly common with Americans. My question really involves your thoughts about involuntary taxes going to fund faith-based organizations, something we all pay in to if we pay taxes.

It's the tax dollars which I am questioning here.

Much clarity and food for thought coming out of this for me, so far.