U.S. Gave $1B in Faith-Based Funds in 2003

Foxfyre
Nothing, not even government is stagnant. The key is that there is no constitutional prohibition against giving of help and charity. There is however a prohibition of giving that charity to religious organization that mix proselytizing with that charity. By virtue of separation of church and state statutes.

Could you please point out the specific constitutional phrase that prohibits routing charitable giving through religious organizations?

I Knew that was coming. The first amendment to the constitution has been interpreted as calling for separation of Church and State. Therefore the giving of funds to a religious organization which will be used in part to further the belief in religion is unconstitutional.
This has come up many times on a2k and been anwered and yet someone will always ask the question again.

And to utilize organizations that are already set up and operating to disburse funds to help people in no way violates the original intent of the Constitution or the assumed 'separation of Church and State' in a way that was never intended.

Do you really think the administration did not get legal counsel before they undertook this initiative? Even the ACLU hasn't come up with anything to attack it with which should not be interpreted that they aren't looking.

I still say those who are sincere in wanting to see people get help don't much care how that is accomplished. Those who put ideology ahead of people are going to have problems with it. And then there are others who for various reasons will choose one side or the other.

Meanwhile, where is it written that the government is constitutionally authorized to give ANY charitable funds to ANY organizations or directly to anybody?

And what would we think about it if Congress should back up, take a look at that, and decide to go with the Constitution on this one?

Where is it written that they may not? This subject has been argued over time and time again. Not worth the effort to go through again. After a while it becomes a circle jerk. Believe whatever you want to.

Well gosh, Au, if the subject is boring to you why did you bother to respond at all? I think the idea is provocative and hoped somebody else would think so too. You by all means should go watch basketball or something, not that you need my permission not to participate in a congenial discussion.

The party who claims everyone else is a policy shifter has decided that a forced contribution out of everyone's taxes to religious organizations they don't all believe in again belies any notion of small government. The Church of Scientology should get lots of government money to clear everyone and make John Travolta into a Dianetics saint.

Foxy
The subject is not boring. It is people like you who beat a thread to death who are. Your questions have been asked and discussed many times over.

I think it is time for me to party ways with a2k

I thought I asked a brand new question. It's just that you, Au, wished to ignore the new one and answer the old one again. So who's being circular here?

And LW, I read your post three times and still have no idea what you're saying.

is the church of satan eligible for faith based funding ?

just playing devil's advocate here...

If they are a bonafide not-for-profit organization and their grant request meets the guidelines previously linked, then yes they would be as eligible as anybody else.

But that begs the original question. I really would like to discuss Walter Williams report of a time when the U.S. government was not involved in the business of charity to anybody for any reason.

What would happen if we got back to that?

good, i hoped that there would be a fair reply. ya know that that event would have a bunch of heads exploding though, don't ya foxy ?


i don't know if la vay's church of satan even exists anymore. i don't think i've heard anything about it since the 70's



that would probably be the only all around fair thing to do. no faith based, no nea, no international aid. no nothing.

it would suck, but it would be fair to both the religious and secular communities. scrooge would be proud... :wink:

I'm not sure about that. Did you read Williams' essay? The theory here is not that charity is not a good thing nor that it won't happen. The concept is that there is no constitutional basis for it and further there is no moral justification to confiscate property from Citizen A who honorably earned it and give to Citizen B who did not. I had never thought about corporate charity being that same principle until I read this current essay, but he is right. For a corporation to reduce profits in order to give to charity takes from it sinvestors who invested their money in good faith.

Recently here in Albuquerque, when the first wave of troops serving in Iraq were sent home on furlough, initially they were transported by the military to the eastern seabord, but were on their own getting home from there. As this was a hardship for many military families, a local radio station started a "Home from Iraq fund", a local bank agreed to receive the funds, and donations were pouring in by the many thousands, more than enough to get that first wave home and we intended to keep it up until all the troops were home.

Then the Feds changed their policy and decided they would get those people all the way home. Naturally if the government was doing it, the local private contributions dried up. This is pretty much the case whenever the government takes over charity that would normally be handled by the private sector.

So I wonder if it would be 'scroogeville', or if the American people would not step up to the plate and enjoy the great feeling of voluntarily helping the less fortunate. Was there more poverty before government started helping the poor? I wonder.

Anyhow it's worth thinking about I think..

If you don't understand that the bureaucracy which administrates the faith-based initiative is as large if not larger than the direct government involvement with the identical social problems, that's not my problem. The neo-cons sinch Gingrich and his defunct contract on America are still finding just as many ways if not more ways to make the Federal government bigger, not smaller. This is without accounting for the wasted money within the bureaucracy of each religious organization and I mentioned one that is non-Christian who does qualify for funds. Having been involved recently in the bureaucracy of a church organization, the inefficient committees, the inner political (yes, there are politics within churches, the Catholic church being a very good example) bickering , et al, I can write with some experience, although admittedly its only a small piece of the tip of the iceburg. I don't quite understand the faith (sic) in the Federal government regulating the dispersal of tax money to all these religious and quasi-religious organizations who claim to be doing good with the money and more efficiently than the government.

Read the guidelines LW. Read the guidelines. They are linked up there somewhere. The government is not funding the faith-based organizations. It is funding specific programs administered by the faith-based organizations. Can you say with a straight face that faith-based groups are less efficient in administering a specific program whether it is a pre-school or soup line or thrift shop or remedial reading or tutoring or sheltering etc. than are secular organizations?

The point is, people of faith are the ones most likely to get into the business of direct hands on help to others. Yes, the nonrelgious also do this, but these are much less common. So you have organizations in place with infrastruture, staff, and resources to administer the programs. The saving in administrative costs is enormous and much more of the government dollar gets to somebody who actually needs it. Otherwise, most of the money is eaten up by government bureaucracy as is testified by welfare programs of the past.

If the government is going to be in the business of charity, it only makes sense to use those organizations already in place who are in the business of charity. And since most of those are faith-based, it doesn't make sense to cut all faith-based groups out of the mix.

But again, I personally would like to move the debate to consideration of whether the government should be in the business of charity at all.

Yes, I read the "guidelines." Just come up with a description of how this works based on fact that these religious organizations are more efficient, have the infrastructure and staff to administrate these programs any better (or perhaps worse?) than the Federal, State of Local governments. There's just as much officiousness and inefficiency within religious organizations as in any governmental or business entity. If the Federal government fails anywhere it's in pouring money into anything and that includes the neo-cons.

Well I have also worked in the church as a member/volunteer, have worked for the church as an employee, and have headed a not-for-profit charitable organization. I have seen the statistics on the ratios of administrative versus direct services all not-for-profit organizations are required to furnish and, as a volunteer auditor for the United Way, I have had access to a lot of books of member agencies.

Trust me on this. The faith based groups overall operate more financially efficiently than do either the government or most of the secular organization. About 30 cents of every government welfare dollar gets to somebody who actually needs it. I don't know any faith based organization that has a record like that. I don't have time to locate specific statistics now so will post this as an informed opinion.

Your opinion to the contrary is duly noted.

Are you ignoring the question as to whether the government should be in the business of charity at all?

No, I don't trust you on this. Your premise is that religious or "faith-based organizations" determined by the government will take care of the poor and needy, all those dependent on substances, all those finding themselves in circumstances which are not specifically in their control efficiently and more efficiently than the government. Where are these statistics "you've seen?"

The question is whether government should provide safety nets which can be called charity or can be called entitlements.

Here ya go LW. Poke around this site for a few days. http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/FAQ/index.php?category=31

And we aren't talking about entitlements if you have been paying any attention at all to the subject of this thread.

I hope you aren't "talking" about entitlements because if so, I'd seen therepy. I don't see anything to "poke around for a few days" at that site that in anyway proves anything you have stated.

I merely stated that the word charity might not be applicable as nobody has fought to declare the government providing welfare and other programs as unconstitutional, therefore they can be characterized as a form of entitlement, not charity. Somewhere, somehow I'd wager that those on the down-and-outs have paid taxes. Looks like a campaign for you to embark on considering you're so passionate about it.