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

seperation of church and state
[[/QUOTE]

dear au1929
I'd like to suggest that you read the constitution. Nowhere does the phrase "seperation of church and state appear". The term came from a letter to the Danbury baptist association from Thomas Jefferson. Before the constitution was ratified there was some concern that it may be interpreted to mean that the right to worship came from the government. Jefferson wrote to them to say that he agreed that the right to worship came from God and that the 1st amendment would build a wall of seperation between church and state. Did you even know that in 1800 when Washington D.C. became the capitol congress voted to use the capitol building as a church? Jefferson attended and even provided government paid musicians. In 1803 he provided federal funds $300.00 to assist the Kaskaskia Indians in building a church and $100.00 per year for 7 yrs to pay for a Catholic priest for them. He also urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes.

So those of you who said never, sorry too late. The country was founded by Christians. It is being poisoned by secularist.

Also, as long as you take my tax dollars to do what had traditionally been the churches work, we'll continue to say we have just as much right to it as secularist.
dadothree

Yes Dado, "The country was founded by Christians", but they were Christians fleeing to escape religious persecution in their homeland, and it was clearly the intent of the founding fathers to keep their new government from following the same path i.e. forcing their religion onto everyone.

Surely you understand that no one is saying Christians ought not practice their religion freely and as passionately as they choose. What we're saying is that America, unlike many other countries, is a country of vast diversity, including religious diversity, and those tax dollars you referenced come from people of all Faiths (or no Faith). It is therefore inappropriate to have the government embrace, or appear to be embracing, any one particular religion, or any religion at all.


The churches, synogogues, mosques, etc. of this country can and do provide wonderful outreach programs, usually in the name of their Faith, and often (understandably) in an attempt to bring in new members to their flocks. Their programs certainly ought to exist, but not, IMO, through government funding.

I have no problem whatsoever with 'strings' being attached to help offered people in need so long as the strings are purely optional. If people choose to go to an agency that requires a prayer or a short church service before a meal, but people are being helped, bathed, clothed, fed, given safe warm shelter, who are we to question where the funding comes from? If that same agency can help people in even more creative and productive ways with additional funding, and they're the best game in their area, why deny them funding because they are simply doing what they have always done?

The alternatie is to use the same tax dollars to secure a building, staffing, copy machine, telephones, etc. etc. etc. that the faith-based organization already has in place. In the way these funds are going out, virtually 100% of the money can go to help people because there is no increase in overhead or administrative costs to do it.

I don't care if the organization is as nutty as a fruitcake or advocates for a martian invasion so long as they are genuinely helping people. Further the people who serve in these faith-based organizations genuinely care about the people they help and have no agenda other than helping. So long as people are not forced to go there and are genuinely helped if they do, who are any of us to say this is an inappropriate way to help?

dadothree
You are voicing the same old BS, The constitution does not specifically call for separation of church and state. I should point out to you that is the official and accepted interpretation of the first amendment of the constitution. It seems that when all else fails some will come up with. "It does not call for separation of church and state."

Foxy
You may have no objection to stings attached in order to get assistance. If the religious organization commits the funds neither do I. But if I do through my tax dollar I most certainly do. MY tax dollar was never intended to be a vehicle for proselytizing.

au - if you are going to accept "separation of church and state" as part of the constitution because of a letter Jefferson wrote explaining the ammendment (which is where the 'official and accepted interpretation of the first ammendment' came from), perhaps you would be willing to accept other letters from our founders explaining the constitution? You know, the ones where they advocate use of the Bible in classrooms, suggest that our form of goverment can only work if people are religious, etc.?

Quite the double-standard you've got going here.

Idaho
Wake up.
It is not what I accept it is what has been established as the law of the land. The problem is that the religious fanatics only accept the law of the land if it agrees with their philosophy. They, the Christian Taliban, would if they could change this nation into a Christian theocracy.
This nation was established by people from all nations, faiths and denominations to escape the religious tyranny they had suffered in Europe.

My understanding of how funding to faith-based groups is supposed to work is thus: Federal money is to go for feeding, education, etc., but not for religious work. Am I right?

I defy anyone to explain to me how this is to be monitored, or what it really means. If an agency has a $1,000,000 budget to cover all expenses, then gets another $50,000 to cover certain expenses, it ultimately frees money for everything the agency does.

And for those who keeping writing, "I see no problem with ___________________ " (fill in the blank, usually along the lines of prayer services before meals for the homeless) -- My question is:

How many times have you had to sit through a religious service you didn't want to be at?

The way I see it, if they don't want to sit through a church service or prayer, they can find a secular kitchen that just doles out the stuff with no questions asked and nothing in return asked. If they don't mind sitting through a church service in order to get a smile, a hot meal, a warm bed, and a little loving kindness, who is anybody to say that shouldn't happen?

I agree with your premise here, though I wonder why the secular kitchen is described as a place that "just doles out the stuff" and the church as offering "a smile, a hot meal, a warm bed, and a little loving kindness."

Is it so impossible to imagine a warm atmosphere in a secular environment? We're not talking about methadone clinics here.

I didn't say that secular environments are not 'warm'--you concluded that from my statement. While there are always exceptions to almost any rule, my personal observations are that the faith-based groups generally do a better job of loving and genuinely caring about people than do secular groups. And I say this while rarely adhering to the particular brand of faith advocated by the groups who are helping.

Nothing like personal observation to prove a point.

Cycloptichorn

Fox wrote: "If people choose to go to an agency that requires a prayer or a short church service before a meal, ...."

I guess if someone is hungry enough, he'll sit through anything to get to a meal; that does not make it Ok.

I disagree with the statement above suggesting that the only motive faith based agencies have is "to help people". This may be true in some cases, but there are clearly other cases where pushing for converts is a definite and often primary motivation.

And my experience (also anecdotal) has been that secular agencies are often manned by highly moral people who work long hours for little money (if any) because they deeply care and want to make a difference.

Charities, both secular and religious, should be judged by their results. Period. Provide money to the organizations with the best results and we will be spending our tax money wisely. Although, my preference would be to get government intirely out of the charity business - it would be a lot more efficient to just give directly to charities without the government waste in the middle.

Idaho- I am torn, right up the middle. Having worked for a religious non-profit agency, and interacting with governmental agencies doing similar work, I have seen how the non-profits DO provide superior services, with less bureaucratic baloney.

I am concerned though, that religious organizations, no matter what they say, are looking for converts, whether overtly or covertly. And that agenda, IMO will color the way the agencies provide services.

My husband talks about how when he was in the military, during his leaves, he could get a good meal, and a clean bed, if he attended church services. He said that it was no big deal. But, there was one major difference. At the time, the organization which provided the meals and the beds were not supported by tax dollars!

So let's look at it from another perspective: One responsibility of government it so be good stewards of our money(at which it typically fails miserably, unfortunately). As purely an economic issue, it may make sense to provide funds on results-only basis.

Also, by prohibiting expenditure of government funds to religious organizations, couldn't that be viewed as government endorsement of atheism and denial of religion? By making religion part of the equation in deciding where government funds go, we aren't ensure the "separation of church and state" but rather binding them together inseparably, forcing the state to make judgements about religion.

We don't want a religion running the state. We don't want the state requiring all of us to follow a religious belief. We don't want the state denying religion either. Funding should be like a job interview. Just like an employer can't ask you your religious affiliation when hiring you, the government shouldn't ask for religious affiliation when "hiring" charitable organizations.

But funding an agency is NOT like a job interview, in any way shape or form. When a person applies for a job, unless the job is religion oriented, like a minister, or a worker in a religiously oriented bookstore, the person's faith has no bearing on his job performance. In fact, the employee's religious faith should not be any part of his work life. Imagine a salesman, while pitching his product, attempting to proselytize a potential customer. A savvy boss would fire a person like that, immediately.

I had an experience, a few years ago, with a physician. I had been warned that this doctor was part of a group of "born agains", but since they had a good reputation medically, I decided to give them a shot. I was appalled when the doctor started spouting religion. I don't care if that man was the greatest doctor in the world. His inappropriate behavior caused me a lot of discomfort. Needless to say, he never saw me again.

I do not believe that an agency, whose entire raison d'etre is religion, can provide a service without allowing their religious bias to muddy the services that they are providing. Now, I know that some will attempt to be as even handed as possible, but many won't. And I don't think that the government has the manpower to monitor the agencies. That will allow some to overstep.



IMO, funds given to agencies by the federal government needs to be religion neutral, neither pro, nor con. There are plenty of charities that are not connected to religion, that could do a creditable job. Religion, or lack of it, should not be a reason for giving out tax monies, funded by all its citizens. I cannot imagine why not giving federal funds to religious would be considered an endorsement of atheism. I would not approve of giving tax dollars to atheist groups either!

Again it all comes down to accountability. Those organizations who are receiving grants are required to state exactly what they will do with the funds. They are also required to report what they actually did do with the funds and to subject themselves to audit. If they are doing good work that the government would otherwise need to do, and are doing it at a fraction of the cost so that we taxpayers are getting a good deal more bang for our buck, then those organizations shoulld not be faulted because they are otherwise doing what they have always done.

I have absolutely no quarrel with the non-religious and can appreciate how a prayer or a church service might be offensive to the religiously prejudiced. At the same time, I appreciate that some really don't mind. And if they were going to that mission or whatever before it got government funding, or they would have gone there whether or not it received government funding, then how is it a bad thing if the mission has the wherewithall to help even more people in even better ways?

No grants are going to fund church services or prayer leaders. The funds are earmarked for food, clothing, shelter, job training, or whatever it is that the organization provides to those who need it.

Disclaimer: When I say 'religiously prejudiced' I put myself in that category when it comes to some expressions of religious faith. I dislike them and avoid them whenever possible.

I find your choice of words quite revealing, Foxfyre!

Sorry Phoenix, I edited my post with a disclaimer about that. See above.

Well actually foxy, a few of here (meself included) are definitely religiously prejudiced. For some it took years of experience, for others, like me, It just came naturally.