Church and State: Cozy Bedfellows

[Back]

Bush pushes faith-based initiative (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l3&flok=FF-APO-1151&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050301%2F1852117487.htm&sc=1151).

So not only has he thrown out the progress we made during WWII, he now wants to go back even further.

With so many people up in arms over welfare babies, drug addicts and how people shouldn’t get hand-outs, to work for themselves, how is this initiative better?

Churches already live tax free. This is either a pay-off, or just more redistribution of OUR tax dollars into the hands of the already enourmously wealthy.

[SpunGirl]

Religion makes me want to vomit. This kind of bullshit from our government should be punishable by a swarm of locusts.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Bypassing Congress,Ok, that's a bit alarming.
Bush has used executive orders and regulations to give religious organizations equal footing with nonsectarian groups in competing for federal contracts. I don't get what's bad about that though.
His goal is fairness, where the focus of the grants process is on resultsThat pig!!!
All drunks are welcome, is what the sign ought to say.That also is a little :tilt hand:.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I don't get what's bad about that though.

The Establishment clause prevents government from "establishing" any religion in the country. This clause is not in the second, third, or fourth amendment. It's in the First.

In a nutshell, the argument goes like this: some religious groups in the US hold greater power and influence than other religious groups. Clearly the American Society of Hindus, or the Buddhists of America do not hold the kind of wealth and influence that other American religious groups do. If the government were to allow religious organizations to vie for tax dollars, the most powerful religious group(s) will have a much greater ability to compete for and obtain government funding, over time creating a de facto established religion.

I believe the saying, "don't shit where you sleep" is apt in this situation.

[Hulkein]

The money is going towards religious charities.

They don't ask to see your religious ID card before they help out.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Hulkein]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I don't get what's bad about that though.

Taxes should be paid. I get the feeling that allowing religious organizations to bid on contracts would allow them to bid lower than the average Joe, who has to pay taxes. This is not fairness, this is a leg up.



His goal is fairness, where the focus of the grants process is on resultsThat pig!!!

I agree, it's deplorable. You may not have a problem with religious organizations receiving tax dollars, I do however as I'm sure many Americans do.



All drunks are welcome, is what the sign ought to say.That also is a little :tilt hand:.

It's in reference to treatment programs. If a religious organization is receiving so much as a dollar in federal aid, they should not be allowed to offer treatment to only those of the same faith, nor should they be allowed the attempt to "convert". If you receive tax dollars in the form of a grant ... that money is to be used in the manner the grant was intended. We don't have grants to preach.

[Farquar]

The advertised motives for this type of legislation always sound benign and innocuous. The danger, however, doesn't lie in giving money to charities, because everyone wants to do that. The danger lies in the slippery slope that underlies the church/state dichotomy.

Look at what happened in Germany in the 30's. No one really opposed compulsory registration for Jews because it seemed harmless. Then, no one opposed having to wear little yellow stars because it was just a little inconvenient. Look at where it eventually led though.

[4a6c1]

Yeah. This just pisses me off. So. I'm going to ignore it and hope it goes away.

:mad:

Wow people are going to be helped by groups that have shown they can do the work, That is sooo wrong. Personally though, I dont think any of them should get any money, if people want to help then let it be from their own pockets not my taxes... let that money go to things of more use, like higher pay for people in the military

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Dave]

[Edaarin]

Hey, I mean this country was founded by Christians, on Christian morals, for Christians.

Right?

[Hulkein]

Two out of three, Edaarin.

I don't think the money is being given exclusively to Christians, though.

[Edaarin]

I'd be highly surprised if it wasn't.

But these days most surprises are pleasant surprises.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
Wow people are going to be helped by groups that have shown they can do the work, That is sooo wrong.

The only thing these groups have shown is that they are only able and willing to help people who will listen to sermons and bible thumping. They are no more, and actually considerably less, qualified than groups like the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, Unicef. Given the choice between a religious organization and the United Way, I'd pick the United Way each and every time.

Very few religious organizations have shown they can do the work.


Personally though, I dont think any of them should get any money, if people want to help then let it be from their own pockets not my taxes... let that money go to things of more use, like higher pay for people in the military

So let the problems grow and fester, pass them on to the next generation, anything so long as you're not bothered with it.

I could argue that my tax dollars are wasted on anything beyond military pay. I could argue that military personnel should have to provide their own health care. I could argue that military personnel need to provide their own housing. I could argue that military personnel should provide their own clothing and food.

It's a very convenient stance you have considering all that is provided for you at the expense of tax payers like me.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Hey, I mean this country was founded by Christians, on Christian morals, for Christians.

Right?

No.

[Hulkein]

I think Edaarin was being sarcastic, Tsa`ah.

As long as this money isn't being given to only one denomination and as long as it isn't only being used for those of that religion, I think it is fine.

I do have a question regarding the topic. Wasn't the anxiety of Church and State caused by the fact that the Church was ruling the government, not the opposite, which is the government helping the Church?

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Hulkein]

Tsa'ah You really should look into the Salvation Army a bit more... :) that is before you make a moron out of yourself.

(its a faith based org)

[xtc]

In Ontario Canada we have been funding "faith based intiatives" for years. The reason is for one simple fact, faith based groups like The Salvation Army and many Churches are already running programs, shelters, detoxes and treatment centres for homeless and addicted people. They have to meet certain provincial (state) guidelines in order to receive the funding. I have done years of volunteering at the "lowest rungs" and while their beliefs may not be my beliefs, I can't fault their caring and their commitment. I have seen the Salvation Army clean up addicts of every faith without trying to convert them.

One thing I don't see in shelters, treatment centres, and detoxes are Limousine Liberals except at photo op time. It is to run your mouth about the people who work with the homeless without lifting one finger to help.

I like the idea of funding faith based intiatives to help the homeless as long as there are standards in place.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by xtc]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I think Edaarin was being sarcastic, Tsa`ah.

I realize that. Call it answering the question before a "damned straight it was" post appeared.


As long as this money isn't being given to only one denomination and as long as it isn't only being used for those of that religion, I think it is fine.

The biggest problem with that is with giving a "tax exempt" stamp to almost any nut case that can argue the church shelter.

We really don't police religious organizations that well. Just look at the cost of running a network channel(s) used by evangelists. Evangelists that drive to "work" in expensive cars, wearing expensive jewelry and clothes, living in multi-million dollar homes ... all tax free.

The problem I'm most concerned about is the potential for fraud and what "contracts" a church group would be qualified to bid on.


I do have a question regarding the topic. Wasn't the anxiety of Church and State caused by the fact that the Church was ruling the government, not the opposite, which is the government helping the Church?

The churches ruled via proxy, not directly in most cases. The monarchy would tax you, and the church would tithe you. The monarchy would restrict your freedom, the church would restrict your leisure.

Essentially, by allowing religious organizations to bid on federal dollars, you empower them to an extent. You open up that door allowing them to spread past the boundaries our current laws allow. You give state recognition to the institution, from there religion can petition the courts for more, for "equal" rights.


Originally posted by Dave
Tsa'ah You really should look into the Salvation Army a bit more... :) that is before you make a moron out of yourself.

(its a faith based org)

This is your reply? This is all you can come up with? No defense of your position ... just look into the Salvation Army before I make a moron of myself?

I'm perfectly aware that the Salvation Army is a Christian organization. It is one of the very few that I believe capable of dispersing federal grants as they should be. The Salvation Army is far less insidious than most faith based "aid" groups.

The Salvation Army doesn't force children to learn scripture before they're fed. The Salvation Army doesn't wait for the sick and infirmed to convert before they receive medical treatment. The help, and then they offer up faith, they don't shove it down the throats of the needy.

Care to argue why you should receive the perks of my tax dollars when there are more deserving children and adults trying to better themselves that could make better use of it?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
[quote]Originally posted by Dave
Wow people are going to be helped by groups that have shown they can do the work, That is sooo wrong.

The only thing these groups have shown is that they are only able and willing to help people who will listen to sermons and bible thumping. They are no more, and actually considerably less, qualified than groups like the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, Unicef. Given the choice between a religious organization and the United Way, I'd pick the United Way each and every time.

Very few religious organizations have shown they can do the work.

[quote]

First off you're wrong.

Many faith based groups are miles ahead of non-faith based groups in treating addicts. The Salvation Army has one of the most effective relapse prevention programs for hard core addicts out there. They have modeled their course around the work of Terry Gorksy's, who has been a pioneer in treating the untreatable.

When you go the worst part of any city, the organisation that is always there working in the slums with the homeless is The Salvation Army.

Unicef has some good programs but they aren't mobilised anywhere near the extent that the Salvation Army is on the street.

The Salvation Army is an evangelical Christian organisation. They cloth, feed, house, treat and love those people that most of society doesn't stop to spit on. If you want the Sermon on Sunday, it is available however it is optional.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by xtc]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc

First off you're wrong ...



Read on.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc

First off you're wrong ...



Read on.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Tsa`ah]

where?

[Back]

An overview of the initiative (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/helping.html#1) from WhiteHouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov).

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
where?


Originally posted by Tsa`ah

I'm perfectly aware that the Salvation Army is a Christian organization. It is one of the very few that I believe capable of dispersing federal grants as they should be. The Salvation Army is far less insidious than most faith based "aid" groups.

The Salvation Army doesn't force children to learn scripture before they're fed. The Salvation Army doesn't wait for the sick and infirmed to convert before they receive medical treatment. The help, and then they offer up faith, they don't shove it down the throats of the needy.

Care to argue why you should receive the perks of my tax dollars when there are more deserving children and adults trying to better themselves that could make better use of it?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
where?


Originally posted by Tsa`ah

I'm perfectly aware that the Salvation Army is a Christian organization. It is one of the very few that I believe capable of dispersing federal grants as they should be. The Salvation Army is far less insidious than most faith based "aid" groups.

The Salvation Army doesn't force children to learn scripture before they're fed. The Salvation Army doesn't wait for the sick and infirmed to convert before they receive medical treatment. The help, and then they offer up faith, they don't shove it down the throats of the needy.

Care to argue why you should receive the perks of my tax dollars when there are more deserving children and adults trying to better themselves that could make better use of it?

Ah you corrected yourself.

Bush did state that these organisations will have an open door policy and will not be limited to any one faith. As I previously stated we have had great success with this Canada. I think the potential for good here far outways the possibilities for abuse. As stated in Backlashes Whitehouee link, financial audits will be done on these organisations. I have faith(pun not intended) that the media will expose any cases where organisations try to convert or turn people from other faiths away.

Consider how many people could be helped by these initiatives. I believe that good far outways the potential for bad here.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Edaarin
Hey, I mean this country was founded by Christians, on Christian morals, for Christians.

Right?

No.

Come on how many Buddhists do you see in old westerns?

Seriously, people from many factions of Christianity came to America to escape religious persecution. I am betting that the majority of people who came to America in the early days were Christian (Jefferson not included).

This isn't an argument in favour of any religious dominance. Personally I prefer to live in a secular nation but I respect the right of anyone else to practise any religion they choose.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by xtc]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc

Ah you corrected yourself.

No, I did not. I listed the Salvation Army, well before you posted, as a capable organization as I don't consider them to be the typical faith based organization.


Bush did state that these organisations will have an open door policy and will not be limited to any one faith. As I previously stated we have had great success with this Canada. I think the potential for good here far outways the possibilities for abuse. As stated in Backlashes Whitehouee link, financial audits will be done on these organisations. I have faith(pun not intended) that the media will expose any cases where organisations try to convert or turn people from other faiths away.

My problem isn't with the faith based groups already receiving grant money so much as making faith based groups eligible for government contracts. A contract is not a grant, a contract is an agreement to perform a job for an agreed upon price. When one gets paid to do a job that income is taxed. Allowing faith based groups to bid on contracts is not a good direction to go in.

I have no more faith in our government to investigate faith based groups than I do in our media. Faith based fleecing is not hard to find ... turn on the TV. Yet where are the investigations? Where are the stories?


Consider how many people could be helped by these initiatives. I believe that good far outways the potential for bad here.

In your opinion. I don't see the potential good outweighing the bad by any stretch.


[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc

Come on how many Buddhists do you see in old westerns?

Westerns have nothing to do with it.


Seriously, people from many factions of Christianity came to America to escape religious persecution. I am betting that the majority of people who came to America in the early days were Christian (Jefferson not included).

And I'm betting the majority of people fleeing religious persecution were not Christian, just those tired of Christian persecution.

I would say that most of the "religious" refugees were Quakers, Shakers, and Jews. Everyone else wanted a fresh start, a clean slate, and the option to go to church or not, the option to tithe or not, and the option to believe or not.

[Back]

From The Golden State Chapter of The Salvation Army (http://www.tsagoldenstate.org/default.asp?page=forbes&menu=aboutus).


Yes, the Army does get some money from city, state and federal governments - but government aid covers only a shade more than 15% of its spending. Other charities - CARE and Catholic Charities USA, for example - get more than 60% of their funds from the government.


Its frankly religious mission bars the Army from getting more tax payer money. The Army does not seek government money for its 120 adult rehabilitation centers because the programs - which deal with drug and alcohol abusers - are aggressively faith-based. The participants are expected to fund the programs themselves through the pick-up and recycling of used furniture, clothes and appliances sold at the Army's 1,600 thrift stores. In 1996 the stores brought in more than $300 million, roughly one-sixth of the Army's total revenues. Says Robert Watson: "We have our own policies, and we will not compromise missions for the sake of funding."

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc

Ah you corrected yourself.

No, I did not. I listed the Salvation Army, well before you posted, as a capable organization as I don't consider them to be the typical faith based organization.


Bush did state that these organisations will have an open door policy and will not be limited to any one faith. As I previously stated we have had great success with this Canada. I think the potential for good here far outways the possibilities for abuse. As stated in Backlashes Whitehouee link, financial audits will be done on these organisations. I have faith(pun not intended) that the media will expose any cases where organisations try to convert or turn people from other faiths away.

My problem isn't with the faith based groups already receiving grant money so much as making faith based groups eligible for government contracts. A contract is not a grant, a contract is an agreement to perform a job for an agreed upon price. When one gets paid to do a job that income is taxed. Allowing faith based groups to bid on contracts is not a good direction to go in.

I have no more faith in our government to investigate faith based groups than I do in our media. Faith based fleecing is not hard to find ... turn on the TV. Yet where are the investigations? Where are the stories?


Consider how many people could be helped by these initiatives. I believe that good far outways the potential for bad here.

In your opinion. I don't see the potential good outweighing the bad by any stretch.


[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Tsa`ah]

The Sally Ann is a faith based group even if you choose to separate them. I disagree the statement below you posted and I believe you are incorrect here.

"Very few religious organizations have shown they can do the work"

I think Religious groups have shown they already have the infrastruture and programs in place. Unicef and Habitat for Humanity are great organisations, however neither are mobilised on the street like the Sally Ann, which I know you respect.

If non-faith groups can bid on contracts, faith based groups should be allowed to. If they can do the work best they should receive the contracts. To disallow them to bid is discrimination. Many other tax exempt groups can bid on contracts. This isn't establishing religion.

The Liberal media will be all over any faith based organisation that receives a contract and discriminates.

I have seen many stories debunking so called Christian healers who fleece people. The CBC up here has done numerous shows on it. They have attacked that rat Benny Hinn at every turn.

Like I said I believe the good will far outway the bad.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by xtc]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Backlash
From The Golden State Chapter of The Salvation Army (http://www.tsagoldenstate.org/default.asp?page=forbes&menu=aboutus).


Yes, the Army does get some money from city, state and federal governments - but government aid covers only a shade more than 15% of its spending. Other charities - CARE and Catholic Charities USA, for example - get more than 60% of their funds from the government.


Its frankly religious mission bars the Army from getting more tax payer money. The Army does not seek government money for its 120 adult rehabilitation centers because the programs - which deal with drug and alcohol abusers - are aggressively faith-based. The participants are expected to fund the programs themselves through the pick-up and recycling of used furniture, clothes and appliances sold at the Army's 1,600 thrift stores. In 1996 the stores brought in more than $300 million, roughly one-sixth of the Army's total revenues. Says Robert Watson: "We have our own policies, and we will not compromise missions for the sake of funding."

In Canada we fund the Army's programs and they don't try to convert anyone. I know I have volunteered at them. They use the word God, but let me let you on a little secret so does every treatment centre faith based or other wise.

[Apathy]

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE 2005 CIVIL WAR!!!!!!

JOHN TITOR WAS RIGHT!!!!

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
In Canada we fund the Army's programs and they don't try to convert anyone. I know I have volunteered at them. They use the word God, but let me let you on a little secret so does every treatment centre faith based or other wise.

Which is fine for Canada. You, being a Canadian resident, should know the night and day differences between the US and Canada.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
The churches ruled via proxy, not directly in most cases.The King of England was the Pope of the English Church. And we all know nobody matters besides us and the UK.
You may not have a problem with religious organizations receiving tax dollars, I do however as I'm sure many Americans do. I have a problem with people freezing to death on the streets of the most powerful country in the world.

And I think I'm going to believe some Canadian newspaper when they say "equal footing" as opposed to you (when it comes to Bush) saying "leg up". :)

BTW, I'm glad we got the Nazi reference out of the way on the first page. :rolleyes:

[HarmNone]

If you're all that happy about it, why did you bring it up again on the second page? :rolleyes:

[Latrinsorm]

Because I didn't get a chance to post on the first page? :?:

edit, and quote:
I'd like to see more people willing to accept that some things they say are hurtful to others, and to care enough not to say them just to be contrary.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[HarmNone]

You realize, of course, that what you have just said makes absolutely no sense. Then again, perhaps you don't.

If you were really glad such a reference was made and not taken further, it would seem logical to just shut up about it, rather than bring it up all over again...on the first page, the second page, or any other page. :yes:

[Slider]

So long as this is open to any religion, this has absolutly nothing to do with seperation of church and state....so what exactly is wrong about it?

[Warriorbird]

Shock and horrors. Some of us aren't religious.

[Slider]

Have you actually ever read the first ammendment?

And I quote;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first ammendment was put in to ensure that there was no "official" religion in the U.S. that would lead to the kind of horrific things that where done in England, Ireland, and Scotland under various rulers. Hell, that are still going on in Northern Ireland. The Founding Fathers did not want this to happen in the U.S. so they wrote the First Ammendment to ensure that ALL religions can be practiced here...not just ONE "State Religion", but Chatholicism, or Protestant, or Baptist, or Bhuddism, or Wiccan or any of the hundreds of other religions practiced here. And wether you happen to be religious or not, has no bearing on it. So long as Bush's offer is open to any religious group, it does not violate the First Ammendment because he is not endorsing any one religion, he is merely saying that they can receive funds for what they already do.

Why is it that so many of you will fanatically defend the 1st ammendment where it concerns freedom of speech but as soon as the word "god" or "religion" comes up, you demand that it is somehow wrong, and must be stamped out? KKK rally? Hey, it's their right to assemble and free speech and all that. A fucking short-eyes wants to have a "how-to" sight on the web for all those aspiring pedophiles? No problem, the ACLU will sue the Gov't for trying to shut it down. After all...the first ammendment gives them that right. Religion? Oh hell no, them fuckers gotta go!

Nice to see you have your priorities straight.

[Warriorbird]

What's unstraight about not wanting my taxes to go to religion?

The rest is just your non-tangental nonsense.

You're funny. It's like my sister's school in Virginia where they established a moment of silence (or silent prayer)... yet forbid a Muslim friend of hers from getting out of her desk to bow down to Mecca (and not even saying anything).

That's about how much any non "proper" religion gets respected in that sort of thing.

Me, I'm simple... I don't want my tax dollars funding religion. It bothers me pretty deeply that the whole Republican Party is ruled by religion, that religion sways elections as heavily as it does, and that a huge motivator behind America's Middle East policy is, "protecting Isreal", but at the very least I'd not like to directly fund religious organizations with my money.

Wasn't the point of the conservative drivel about faith based charities that they wouldn't require government money?

Then again, conservative doesn't mean conservative any more. Government spending has doubled during the 10 years of a Republican controlled congress.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Wezas]

Bush's religious policies are getting out of control. And this....


Originally posted by Dubya
I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.


That sickens me. I wonder how many soldiers overseas (be they atheists or a different religion) never got to hear that statement. They're considered unpatriotic by Bush.

[Killer Kitten]

Bush says the charities are effective because of the shared values and religious identity of their volunteers and employees. Critics take issue with his insistence that taxpayer-funded groups have the right to hire and fire based on religion.

``We're not talking about, `Is God good?' We're talking about discrimination,'' said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va.

Scott said it is a matter of civil rights that employers not be able to consider religion, just as they should not be able to take into account someone's race or gender.

The House planned to consider a bill on Wednesday that would allow religious groups to consider religion in employment. With House passage is expected, the prospects are less certain in the Senate.
__________________________________________________ __

This is the part that bothered me. That groups receiving taxpayer dollars would be permitted to hire and fire based upon a persons religion.

I believe that if a group is funded in whole or in part by taxpayer's money they should have to adhere to the laws of our country. Those laws state plainly that employers are forbidden to discriminate based upon race or religion.

The fact that Mr. Bush thinks that any taxpayer funded group should have the right to practice religious discrimination should scare the hell out of any thinking person.

Edited to add:

I'm a born-again Christian. I feel, however, that this aspect of my life is a separate thing from the fact that I am also a united States citizen. The only bearing these two facts have on each other is that thanks to the latter, I am free to be the former. Just as if I were a devout Wiccan and a U.S. citizen. The latter would permit me to be the former. This is one of the most precious things about our country and the thing I feel that this administration most endangers.

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Killer Kitten]

[Parkbandit]

I'm probably more anti-religious than most of you.. and I really don't have a huge problem with this initiative.

One of the best things that does come out of religion is that they take care of many homeless and many of our society "rejects" (for lack of a better term). They are very active in the community and do tons of volunteer work.

I don't understand why this isn't being embraced by the liberal community. Don't get hung up on the church and state thing so much, because this initiative really isn't about that.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I don't understand why this isn't being embraced by the liberal community. Don't get hung up on the church and state thing so much, because this initiative really isn't about that.

Did you not read the article?


The House planned to consider a bill on Wednesday that would allow religious groups to consider religion in employment.

That's not CNN spin. That's fact.

* My taxes are going to support a group that is trying to help people - Fine

* My taxes are going to support a religious group that is trying to help people - Not thrilled, but if it works, it works. (Salvation Army)

* My taxes are going to support a religious group that is trying to help people, but will only hire people that share the same faith - No Thanks.

[DeV]

In a way we're not being given the option of donating our hard earned tax dollars toward a religious form of welfare.

[Slider]

Damn Warrior how obstinant can you be? First off, have you ever been to an AA meeting? Or a NA meeting? And I'm not even talking one run by a church, or a religious orginization, I mean ANY AA meeting? Ever read their 12 steps? I'm guessing not, because there are thousands of AA groups out there that receive gov't funding, and every single one of them starts out a meeting with prayer. Does this mean you are "funding religion"? No it doesn't. And neither will giving funding to a church that runs an AA program, or a soup kitchen, or a shelter for battered women. All of wich churches do now, along with hundreds of other orginizations that do the same thing. Only difference is, they are eligable for federal funding, and a church run program is not. George Bush is not funding religion, he is giving funding to a soup kitchen, or an AA group, or a shelter, no matter who runs it. Fuck man, your so worried about it, get off your ass and do it your own damn self, quit bitchin' and whining about how evil religion is, go out there and start your own soup kitchen, or shelter. You too can get the funding.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas* My taxes are going to support a religious group that is trying to help people, but will only hire people that share the same faith - No Thanks.

Well how fucking stupid would it be if a catholic church started hiring athiests? That would be the same thing as me in the hotel business hiring people that hate customer service.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I don't understand why this isn't being embraced by the liberal community. Don't get hung up on the church and state thing so much, because this initiative really isn't about that.

Did you not read the article?


The House planned to consider a bill on Wednesday that would allow religious groups to consider religion in employment.

That's not CNN spin. That's fact.

* My taxes are going to support a group that is trying to help people - Fine

* My taxes are going to support a religious group that is trying to help people - Not thrilled, but if it works, it works. (Salvation Army)

* My taxes are going to support a religious group that is trying to help people, but will only hire people that share the same faith - No Thanks.




Okay, this part I will happily agree is wrong. No group that receives Federal Funding should be exempt from Federal Law, and this is discrimination. Period. Funding a program to help people? All for it, don't really care who runs it, but if you descriminate against any group because of race, or religion, you should not be eligable for gov't funding.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Wezas* My taxes are going to support a religious group that is trying to help people, but will only hire people that share the same faith - No Thanks.

Well how fucking stupid would it be if a catholic church started hiring athiests? That would be the same thing as me in the hotel business hiring people that hate customer service.

Ermm...I dunno, I'm a Wiccan working in a retirement home for Nuns...would that count? :lol:

[Warriorbird]

What a ridiculous argument. Because my charitable work doesn't fall into the same frame of reference as yours, I can't suggest that taxes going to fund religious groups is wrong.

I guess it's the libertarian in me. If all the conservatives are so much about small government, can't these churches and "faith based" groups fund themselves?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
In Canada we fund the Army's programs and they don't try to convert anyone. I know I have volunteered at them. They use the word God, but let me let you on a little secret so does every treatment centre faith based or other wise.

Which is fine for Canada. You, being a Canadian resident, should know the night and day differences between the US and Canada.

True there are differences however there are similarities.

My concern is first and foremost for those on the streets, the homeless, the addicted.

I don't see this as funding the agendas of religious organisations. It is the funding of programs for the addicted and the homeless. I think it is important to put politics aside and focus on those who need the help.

If secular non-profit groups can bid on these contracts, faith based groups should be allowed to as well. The contracts must stipulate that conversion is not a part of the program and any inclusion in religious based services is voluntary on the part of the client.

I understand your fear of the thin edge of the wedge. I too fear the relgious zealots in Christianity (yes I am aware that the Zealots weren't Christian). However here I have faith that the majority of these contacts will not include conversion. Of course I expect a small minority to try it on but I am confident they will be found out and banned from bidding on future contracts for x number of years.

Corruption has and does exist in these programs. Many secular non-profit groups eat up more money in administration then they are allowed to. Many administer programs that they are not qualified to administer. Eventually they get found out and banned from future contracts.

As I have stated before I believe this can work. Like any initiatve it won't be perfect and there will be some fine tuning.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
That would be the same thing as me in the hotel business hiring people that hate customer service.

Bad analogy.

And I'm sorry Mr. Falgrin - your application to join our company has been declined because we have found your wife drives a minivan. And we are a pro-SUV company.

^ Worse analogy.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Parkbandit
That would be the same thing as me in the hotel business hiring people that hate customer service.

Bad analogy.



I don't think it's a bad analogy at all. It's not like I can hire because of religion.. but my business ISN'T RELIGION. If you are trying to get a job at a church.. don't you believe you should be of that religion? Why is that so hard to accept?

Now, if a catholic church didn't hire Mr. Smith because he was a black catholic.. then you would have something to complain about.. but I believe the church has a right to hire/not hire based upon it's business.. which is it's religious affiliation.

[Warriorbird]

I agree and it makes my point in turn. Church's business is church, not government. Faith based organizations business should be backed by parishioners.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
What a ridiculous argument. Because my charitable work doesn't fall into the same frame of reference as yours, I can't suggest that taxes going to fund religious groups is wrong.

I guess it's the libertarian in me. If all the conservatives are so much about small government, can't these churches and "faith based" groups fund themselves?

When we can individually determine where the tax money we paid the Federal Government goes.. then you will have a point. I certainly don't want to pay for farmer rebates, exploration of Antartica or a study to determin if there really is intelligent life in West Virginia.

[Warriorbird]

Me either.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I agree and it makes my point in turn. Church's business is church, not government. Faith based organizations business should be backed by parishioners.

But why is it SOOOO bad that they will be allowed to get government funding to help support their VERY liberal ideals of helping out the poor, the elderly and the other victims of society? They are already doing a good job of that.. why not allow them to get some funding by the Government?

I think my position of church is pretty well know.. it's the biggest scam in the history of mankind. They pray upon people's fear of death and morals. They give "answers" to those questions we don't know the answer to. All that, and THEY DON'T PAY TAXES.

But in my opinion, the good outweighs the bad in this case.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
If you were really glad such a reference was made and not taken further, it would seem logical to just shut up about it, rather than bring it up all over again...on the first page, the second page, or any other page. :yes: Ignore it and it'll go away? That worked real well on my gangrene (no, I don't have gangrene, but the point stands!!!).
Originally posted by Wezas
My taxes are going to support a religious group that is trying to help people, but will only hire people that share the same faith
that would allow religious groups to consider religion in employment.

Just curious, Wezas. Where'd you get that dubya quote about atheists? :)

[DeV]

I thought we already paid enough from our taxes to support the system of welfare. What is so bad about churches accepting donations from those that patronize said church to help fund their welfare and good will programs? I mean... you agree that they should be allowed to consider religion when employing people but it's ok that they are putting our tax dollars to work even if we don't agree with their teaching or practices or the fact that the gap between church and state has just been narrowed?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV
I thought we already paid enough from our taxes to support the system of welfare. What is so bad about churches accepting donations from those that patronize said church to help fund their welfare and good will programs? I mean... you agree that they should be allowed to consider religion when employing people but it's ok that they are putting our tax dollars to work even if we don't agree with their teaching or practices or the fact that the gap between church and state has just been narrowed?

This wouldn't be a higher tax burden from us.. just a re-allignment of the tax revenue. I think we actually pay too much in taxes to support the indegent. I get this feeling everytime I am in the grocery store and see people cashing their welfare checks for items that certainly don't seem to be items that someone who is poor would have to have.

And like I said before, when I get to determine where my tax money goes.. I'll have some right to bitch. There are MANY places I don't think they should be spending money on.. but they do. This is no different.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Shock and horrors. Some of us aren't religious.

The money isn't only helping religious people.....

[DeV]

* My taxes are going to support a religious group that is trying to help people, but will only hire people that share the same faith - No Thanks.
Agreed. You can look at religious affiliated organizations such as the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities and they receive federal funding and work very closely with government iniatives and do not require you to be of a particular faith in order to be hired.

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Wezas* My taxes are going to support a religious group that is trying to help people, but will only hire people that share the same faith - No Thanks.

Well how fucking stupid would it be if a catholic church started hiring athiests? That would be the same thing as me in the hotel business hiring people that hate customer service.

I don't know. At the zoo we had more than a few employees who didn't really like animals all that much. Some of these people were actually animal keepers. I never had any complaints about any of them, they cared for the animals properly and never abused them. Had we instituted a policy of 'only animal lovers can get jobs' we would have been stuck with a lot of dead weight bunny huggers and missed out on a lot of really good animal keepers.

It is just wrong for me, a Christian, to have tax dollars that I pay go to fund an Athiest organization that is allowed to discriminate against Christians in its hiring practices. If this Athiest organization is entirely self-funded then they can refuse to hire Christians all they want. If they are collecting money from the American government they should adhere to our American laws, which say they cannot discriminate against qualified applicants in their hiring processes.

[Warriorbird]

Change or realignment doesn't make a difference.