I believe it was Danya in another thread who suggested this might make a good item to discuss - and I agree, it might be!

Does it matter if the charity comes from a religious organization as long as the organization doesn't require any particular or specific religious affiliation or participation or indoctrination.

In other words, if the charity is just that, even though supplied through a faith based group, is it worthy of government support?

and what form of support would that be?

and what form shouldn't it be?

should a church that runs a soup kitchen have access to the same kinds of government subsidy that non-faith based charities receive?

Federal public charity programs are all unconstitutional.

Is that a legal opinion?

I think it is a matter of interpretation, and how you take the "general welfare" clause of the constitution. That, most likely, would be another thread.

I don't necessarily think faith-based charity is a bad thing. Even funding it federally would be ok... But there really must be stipulations...

1. The funding cannot be issued to only selected religious charities. ALL religions should be considered only with regard to the charity they provide, not based on what they preach. Non-faith-based charities should also be considered for funding through the same program, to keep it fair.

2. The organizations receiving federal funds should be required to adhere strictly to federal laws regarding employment discrimination based on religion, or what-have-you.

I have a problem with the funding going to all Christian churches. What that turns it into is a state-sponsored religion, and that is just clearly unconstitutional. If the stipulations above are agreed to, though, I have no problem with my tax dollars paying for good deeds, regardless of who is performing the act.

This is an interesting article which talks about the faith-based initiative from a "protect the church FROM the state" viewpoint.

When Church and State Mix

I don't understand why religion wants to be a part of government. We have seen anytime government give dollars it expects something in return. It in effect ownes you. So, the church may have forgotten that the seperation is there for it's protection as well as the protection of the people.

Ya I read that too. Once you drink from the US gov't well...they got you. You become basically ACLU bait. I have to say though when it come to these things faith based initiatives work better than the secular ones.

Darcaine

Examples?

Both locally and nationally the Red Cross and the United Way have been rocked by scandals.

The church down my street and the synagogue across the way (both of which have extensive charity programs) have never had a scandal.

(I am not a member of either one, by the way.)

Were the Red Cross and United Way scandals any worse than the Catholic Priest sex scandals? How do we know they won't use their charity to pay for sex for example? (not that I think this will happen but just supposing.)

Again, this particular attempt to merge Church and State hurts the church more than anyone else so I'm not as against it as I am other measures that are constantly brought up...like the Bible in school and the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls. What does bother me is that other programs will suffer.

But, doesn't it bother conservatives that Churches don't have to pay taxes, yet they will benefit from your tax dollars with these kinds of measures?

The hope and plan, Danya, is that the churches will not benefit, but the people who receive the charity will benefit.

Personally, I am rather on the fence about this one. While on the one hand I think that churches do a tremendous amount of good charity work (all over the world), accepting any kind of government funds or tax breaks really puts them under the hand of the government.

There was a local church here that had a large, well run and very successful shelter for homeless. They found, however, upon accepting government monies they also had to accept government rules and regulations and paperwork. Just filling out the paperwork subtracted from the amount of time and money the church would otherwise have spent on the shelter. After a while the church opted out of the government program.

As I recall (and I could be wrong) one of the rules the church had was that everyone at the shelter had to adhere to certain rules of behavior. The government came along and said the church couldn't have rules like that.

The good thing about an individual neighborhood church's activities in charity is that the members of the church keep a very close and careful watch upon how money is spent. There is virtually no bureaucracy - no one hundreds of miles away telling them what to do and how to do it - and losing control of the money along the way.

On the other hand (I am a Libra so I can argue both sides) if a church is doing good work, is willing to do the paperwork and ascribe to government rules, I don't see why they should be excluded simply because they are a church.

Isn't it the Salvation Army that requires homeless or hungry people to attend church services before they can be helped? Taken to it's extreme if the government allowed that kind of thing while funding the project it could easily be considered state sponsered religion, could it not?

I do believe that the Salvation Army used to do that - but I am not sure they still do.

I do know that the Salvation Army provides low cost senior housing (there's a large building in downtown San Diego). I also know that the Salvation Army has just finished building a huge (about six large buildings - over $100 million donated by Ray Kroc foundation) for all sorts of community services - everything from swimming to - well, you name it. There are no church services connected with it at all - I am told.


Also, we don't know the exact parameters that the government would require before participating with the faith based group. It might well be that the government would say that no such requirement would be allowed - or at least not a prerequisite to receiving the charity.

As I said I am on the fence with this one. However, would it be better if the charity was not provided? Probably not. If I were hungry and in need of a bed on a cold night, I don't think that a 15 minute sermon would bother me at that point.

I can't speak for everyone, but this conservative isn't bothered or concerned (a conservative nature would make one desire to cease the apparent squeezing of religion from all aspects of life that is happening in this country). I don't know how you got it mixed up, but it's not the conservatives that are tax mongerers.



Of course it is worthy. I just don't see why they would want to accept the support of the government, for reasons that have been cited previously on this board. With the kind of "quid pro quo" situation that would result, it doesn't seem logical. But, if for some reason a faith-based group desired this government support, there is no reason the government should deny them because of their religious affiliation. The kind of support should be the same as would be given to any other group. That's my view of it, anyway.

I can think of one reason churches and church-related charities might be willing to take the government funds. These charities are aiming to do good and help people who are in trouble. In 1996, when AFDC and welfare as we knew it was abolished, replaced with TANF, it was hoped that these former welfare recipients would enter the workplace. Some did, but many were unable to. Food banks, shelters, and the like, have been doing steadily increasing business. They are crying out that these people need more help than ever. Many of them will take the federal funds, in desperation to help more people.