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

Surely every venture or organisation that involves government finanacial assistance is "faith-based"!

Every human-based enterprise is fuelled by some sort of "Faith."

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote




That of course is not the point. But I am sure you know it and are only attempting to muddy the water.

The fact remains that no one should be forced to endure the imposition of religion inorder to get tax supported charity.

You "put yourself in that category", but you also define the term. Disliking them (some religious organizations) and avoiding them may be your definition of "religiously prejudiced", but, to me, use of the word "prejudice" suggests more than dislike and avoidance.

There are many people of faith, people who are NOT "religiously prejudiced", who would be offended at or at least uncomfortable with a prayer service being required before help is given to someone in need. Objecting to this requirement, and objecting to government funding of faith-based organizations in general, in no way implies that someone is "religiously prejudiced".

Also, the argument that not funding "religious" faith-based organizations is a government endorsement of atheism represents flawed logic. A person can clearly be opposed to gov't funding of FBOs and not be an atheist.

By excluding FBOs, the government is simply attempting to insure that our democracy does not cross the line to theocracy.

Religion is one thing, but Faith is another.

Bibliophile

I have yet to hear of any faith only organizations. Faith based organizations are all religious based are they not?

Angie writes


Yes 'prejudice' does suggest more than dislike and avoidance, but we all have our prejudices. My use of the term above was not targeted at any particular person posting in this thread, but was indicative of those who view any religious expression as coercive or dangerous or inappropriate or improper.

Prejudice means offense at something that does not affect one in the least or irrational conclusions drawn about that something. Even though nothing is required or expected of him other than non interference, if Jimbob is offended at being around a person of another race, Jimbob is prejudiced. Even though nothing is required or expected of him other than non interference, if Jimbob is offended at hearing a prayer or being exposed to something religious, Jimbob is prejudiced. Even though nothing is required of me other than noninterference, there are some expressions of religious faith that are offensive to me while relished by others and I accept that as my own prejudice.

I think most non-religious people are not offended when they attend a wedding or funeral service where a sermonlike message is presented and are not offended by a manger scene on the neighbor's lawn or when their host says grace before a meal. And I think most religious people are not offended by religious activities of people of different faiths. I recall an elderly Christian friend some years ago, however, who was incensed that the Fourth of July parade would have a float sponsored by Bnai Brith. She found that offensive even though she couldn't explain what Bnai Brith was all about. She just knew they weren't Christian. That's prejudice, pure and simple.

And yes, I think it is irrationally paranoid to assume that anything associated with religion is going to somehow extrapolate into a state religion or to assume ulterior motives by those faith based organizations committed to helping people. I think it only reasonable and practical to utilize tax dollars in the most efficient and practical ways, and if that can be done through a faith-based organization, that in no way infringes on any constitutional rights.

"I think it is irrationally paranoid to assume that anything associated with religion is going to somehow extrapolate into a state religion or to assume ulterior motives by those faith based organizations committed to helping people."

As I and others gave said, we strongly believe that government sponsored activities should in no way "push" religion, and since many (perhaps not all) FBO's have a clear purpose / agenda to proseletyze and convert, the separation of government from such organizatons is essential.

I think it's fair to say we have all had sufficient time to air our views here on this issue. The discourse has been polite and respectful. At this point, however, if I may say so, I think we're rehashing, so I will be moving on to other threads.

Hope to see you all around.

Some of these issues do start feeling a bit "Ground Hog Dayish" don't they.

I agree. In fact, I like certain religious music, enjoy going to cathedrals, and looking at religious paintings. They are part of our culture, and I have no problem with it. That is not the same as the government paying for a service, where getting involved in a religion on any level, is a prerequisite for that service.



Bottom line, I do not approve of the marriage of government and religion.

Marriage? Neither do I. Cooperative efforts? No problem. It would be objectionable if an organization should use government funding to buy hymnbooks or replace the chapel organ. But if the agency is doing what it has always done, and will continue doing that with or without govenrment funding, but can provide more food, clothing, shelter, showers, haircuts, job training, or whatever to more people with govenrment funding, I honestly cannot see any reason for that to be a problem for anybody.

There is, of course, a very simple solution to this little problem. Get government entirely out of the charity business, and we can all donate as we see fit. Then charity is where it belongs, on a local, personal level, and government doesn't have to worry about religiophobic paranoia.

Actually my libertarian (little L) soul agrees with you completely Idaho. I have always believed that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless and needy, but that there is no constitutional sense that it should be the federal government that does that. If government focused on the constitutional intent (a la the 10th Amendment) and took care of only national defense and those things that cannot be accomplished more efficiently and effectively in the private sector, government would be a tiny fraction of what it is and our taxes would be a tiny fraction of what they are leaving us many more resources to help others.

separation of churchand state
This thread has gotten kinda tame. As one of those religious nuts, I'd like to take this opportunity to stir things up a bit.

I don't accept the supreme courts interpretation regarding the separation of church and state. The court is supposed to interpret law not make it. The 1st amendment reads"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
So if Congress cannot make laws and the ct is only supposed to interpret existing laws how did we end up with so many laws? I believe the founders did not intend to restrict local governments at all. Therefore I feel it should be completely normal for state, county . and municipal governments to establish religion. Early in this nations history, this was quite common.
Also as part of my religion I believe God is the supreme being. I look to him to provide for all my needs. Atheist believe that there is nothing greater than man. When the government removes my religion from the public square they are in effect establishing atheism as the official religion. So when I pay taxes and they are used to fund charities this is a forced tithe to the government. The people then look to the government as the source of their providence. How is the government proselytizing different than a church doing the same? Because of this I will not stand by and quietly allow the government to discriminate against my religion while promoting atheism. I know most of you will not agree, but at least you know my perspective now.

Also as another indication of the positive effects of faith based charities we should consider that many Muslims tsunami victims are being helped by Christians. For many of them this may be the first time they knowingly dealt with Christians. As they regard the U.S. as a Christian nation this is an excellent benefit for all Americans.

Also, just wondering how many of you were born or have had children born in christian hospitals. Would you prefer that those hospitals receive no government funding?

A very successful FBO involves prison ministries. The rate of recidivism is much lower for those inmates who choose to participate. No one is forced to participate they can leave (the program, not prison)when they want. However they are expected to participate and proselytizing is clearly the main goal. The government does not spend any additional funds, but for obvious reasons all work is done on government property. How many of you would oppose this and why? How does your opposition not infringe on the inmates right to worship?

That should liven things up a bit

dadothree

Welcome to A2K dadothree. As I told another newbie tonight, be sure you wear good armor and you have your Valium prescription up to date and then wade right in. Oh, you did.

There is a good discussion going on separation of Church and State I think in the Politics forum and part of your post might fit better there.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=40819&start=350

I think the results of State sanctioned religion have been so generally negative, that it is just as well that we do not have government sanctioned religion at any level and I am glad that our understanding of religious freedom has evolved to that point.

I am libertarian at heart and, like Idaho, would prefer the federal government simply not be involved in matters best left to the local governments and private sector though. But until that might happen, I will probably be in a minority on this thread in believing helping people is helping people, and we shouldn't be all that picky about who gets to do the helping.

And when the county lets a mosque or a Hindi temple be constructed it has in effect made the citizens of that county Muslims or Hindi.

I'm not making a connection there Mr. S. Explain please.

By not actively supporting 'my religion' (unspecified by poster) the gummint has made a religious choice for its citizens and thus made atheism the state religion. So logically, when the gummint recognises any religion it is also making another religious choice for its citizens to live under.

Not logical? Too right. A secular state does not automatically equal athiesm, but some folks just want to draw this rather illogical conclusion. No religion has been 'removed' by the US Constitution and atheism set up to replace it - just the opposite.

But I don't think your analogy meshes Mr. S. If the government takes the Christian crech off the courthouse lawn and places in its stead a Jewish Minorah or some other religion's symbol, then we can definitely say that government is favoring one relgiion over another.

Likewise if the government allows the crech but forbids the Minorah, the we can definitely say that government is favoring one religion over another.

But if government allows any faith group to place their tasteful and meaningful symbols on the courthouse lawn, and/or a secular group can place more secular symbols that they wish (a reindeer, a snowman, etc.) no religion is favored, and there is no illegality.

To forbid any adornment whatsoever at any time would be legitimate as a government policy, though I think it would also be a pretty sterlile and unfriendly, unuseful policy.

But though I don't agree with all of Dado's take on this one, I do agree for the government to remove a religious symbol because an athiest finds it offensive is to give favor to athiesm over another belief system, and that I believe violates the spirit and intent of the First Amendment.

I don't see how any faith group, on their own volition, building a house of worship, constitutes an establishment of religion by the government. It would be different if the government funded the structure.

Anyhow we are highjacking this thread and should move this discussion to the separatation of church and state thread.

faith based $$$


Actually the historical chain of events is more like this.

A group of people with a common religious belief pool their resources together and aquire a large section of land so that they can worship in a way which they feel is more pleasing to their God.
They move to that land and form a local government.
They consider all of their good fortune to be a gift from God
The local government recognizes the societal benefits of their local religious beliefs
With the consent of the people, this local government endorses and openly promotes the religious beliefs of the people.
One person who may or may not be part of the founding group complains to the federal government.
The (judicial branch) federal government decides that no religion can be promoted even though that was the original purpose of establishing the community.
The government begins to take over many of the daily functions that were once done by the religious people. As the number of these functions grow the people are taxed more.
As taxes increase tithes decrease. Some churches close.
Government officials are not allowed to make any personal comments which might promote religion. They can make negative comments.
People can worship privately only. They cannot worship in a public place.
More churches close. Church sponsored schools begin to close.
Due to the high tax rate more people must accept help from the government.
People now begin to look to the government for providence instead of their God
So the forced removal of the local government support is at the very least a watering down of the religion.
If God is not infinite he is no God.
Atheism does not become the official religion. It does not need to be. The people have been taught by the government schools that religion is foolishness.

dadothree
I take it you are in favor of a theocracy and the tyranny of the majority. That certainly flies in the face of what America stands for. Which is both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Each of us shall have the option of worshiping or not worshiping as he sees fit with neither support nor hindrance by government.