And the wall between church and state crumbles a little more...

[Erik The Red]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414473/

Unbe-fucking-lievable.

[SABRSox]

Get used to hearing "5-4 Decision" for a long time.

[Dan Mega]

Among the programs: Substance abuse treatment, housing for AIDS patients, community re-entry for inmates, housing for homeless veterans and emergency food assistance.

Those damn religious types. How dare they get federal money do perform such atrocities.

[Erik The Red]

Those damn religious types. How dare they get federal money do perform such atrocities.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c158/palehose/forumtags/overyourhead.gif

Wish I could say I was surprised.

[Dan Mega]

And I'm not shocked by your insult and lack of an intelligent rebuttal.

Oh, and to clarify things, the ruling was that taxpayers cannot simply say that the separation of church and state is being violated simply because the charity happens to be a religious organization. If this was the case, their next step would have been stopping churches from getting tax exempt status.

[Palehose13]

Those damn religious types. How dare they get federal money do perform such atrocities.

Religious organizations should not get federal money, period. They already get to save plenty by not having to pay taxes AND not having to show their books to the government.


I found this interesting:
Taxpayers in the case "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. "Of course, none of these things has happened."

Hmmmmm...couldn't the same be said about people who oppose same-sex marriage and other "liberal" ideas. :shrug:

And I'm not shocked by your insult and lack of an intelligent rebuttal.

Oh, and to clarify things, the ruling was that taxpayers cannot simply say that the separation of church and state is being violated simply because the charity happens to be a religious organization. If this was the case, their next step would have been stopping churches from getting tax exempt status.

I'm all for that. Most of them are surely not non-profit organizations.

[Dan Mega]

I'm all for that. Most of them are surely not non-profit organizations.

Catholic and the Southern Baptist mega-churches aside, I can assure you that preachers are not driving Mercedes or BMW's.

Religious organizations should not get federal money, period. They already get to save plenty by not having to pay taxes AND not having to show their books to the government.

Churches aren't the only ones...

[Palehose13]

Catholic and the Southern Baptist mega-churches aside, I can assure you that preachers are not driving Mercedes or BMW's.



Churches aren't the only ones...

Religion is a pretty profitable business. Maybe not for individual preachers, but definitely for the higher ups.

[Dan Mega]

Religion is a pretty profitable business. Maybe not for individual preachers, but definitely for the higher ups.

Instead of saying religion as a whole then, maybe the term "synods" would be more accurate?

[Palehose13]

Instead of saying religion as a whole then, maybe the term "synods" would be more accurate?

Nah, I think religion as a whole is very profitable. Organizations get people to throw money at them for...??? I don't know. When I was in grade school I learned that Jesus wasn't about money and did not approve of the Pharisees. Now before anyone goes off on me, I am not criticizin any individual beliefs. I am criticizing organized religion.

[Dan Mega]

Nah, I think religion as a whole is very profitable. Organizations get people to throw money at them for...??? I don't know. When I was in grade school I learned that Jesus wasn't about money and did not approve of the Pharisees. Now before anyone goes off on me, I am not criticizing any individual beliefs. I am criticizing organized religion.

Thank you! :hug:

The individual churches that get just enough to scrape by don't bug me. Those are the churches that tend to stay out of the limelight and politics. The mega churches and such tend to be too wrapped up in social activities and completely miss their own point. But regardless, I think if a church is doing charitable work in a public setting and needs federal funds, it should be able to apply for it. Same as an atheist non-profit organization should be able to get them too if necessary and used appropriately.

[Palehose13]

Thank you! :hug:

The individual churches that get just enough to scrape by don't bug me. Those are the churches that tend to stay out of the limelight and politics. The mega churches and such tend to be too wrapped up in social activities and completely miss their own point. But regardless, I think if a church is doing charitable work in a public setting and needs federal funds, it should be able to apply for it. Same as an atheist non-profit organization should be able to get them too if necessary and used appropriately.

There are atheist organizations? I didn't think we congregated, wouldn't that mess up the idea? Now secular organizations should be definitely getting federal funding. That is the idea. ;)

My issue with religious organizations is that many times there tends to be an alterior motive...like handing out pamphlets, preaching "the word", converting...stuff the government should not be funding.

[SABRSox]

The other issue with giving religious organizations money is that the government is tacitly condoning "preferred religions" as the money given out to these organizations is not spread equally.

[gbergman]

Those damn religious types. How dare they get federal money do perform such atrocities.


I agree

[1951Campbell]

My issue with religious organizations is that many times there tends to be an alterior motive...like handing out pamphlets, preaching "the word", converting...stuff the government should not be funding.

I serve on the board of a start-up non-profit religious group (weird that I serve on this board, huh?) that provides drug and alcohol counseling to recently released inmates, so this decision is of interest to me.

The rules for religious groups that get public money in regard to whom they make take in, employ, and what they can do are basically these:

1. You cannot discriminate based on religion as to who you accept into your program.

2. You cannot require religious services.

3. Staff cannot be required to be a member of any faith group. Of course, the priest can be, say, Catholic, the rabbi Jewish, the Imam Muslim, whatever. But a Catholic organization can't demand the janitor be Catholic as well.

4. Any religious services you do have should generally be ecumenical in character.

I don't think that's too onerous on the organizations, nor does it violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as any religious group who follows the rules can get money under these rules.

Anyway, I see the root of the problem with giving money to religious organizations not to be the religion itself--as it simply is for many hostile to religion--but the fact that this country has a massive welfare apparatus. Of course the argument over whether we should give money to religious organizations is going to come up--we're giving money to everyone else. Remove the money-giving and any perceived Establishment Clause problems magically vanish, but so often those wedded to crying "separation of church and state! Separation of church and state!" are the same folks who never saw a government program they didn't like.

As for these rapacious churches taking money, that doesn't jibe with my organization's paltry bank account and the level of commitment among the founders of the group, a level of commitment that far exceeds that of any government-run program in the area.

So if government is going to ladle out money, why shouldn't it be available to any group deemed not unduly proselytizing? Do you all really think that religious people don't bring their religion to secular institutions anyway?

And finally, a hypothetical: if a widow who is well-off signs her Social Security check every month and puts it in the church donation basket, is that okay?

[Palehose13]

I serve on the board of a start-up non-profit religious group (weird that I serve on this board, huh?) that provides drug and alcohol counseling to recently released inmates, so this decision is of interest to me.

The rules for religious groups that get public money in regard to whom they make take in, employ, and what they can do are basically these:

1. You cannot discriminate based on religion as to who you accept into your program.

2. You cannot require religious services.

3. Staff cannot be required to be a member of any faith group. Of course, the priest can be, say, Catholic, the rabbi Jewish, the Imam Muslim, whatever. But a Catholic organization can't demand the janitor be Catholic as well.

4. Any religious services you do have should generally be ecumenical in character.

I don't think that's too onerous on the organizations, nor does it violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as any religious group who follows the rules can get money under these rules.

Anyway, I see the root of the problem with giving money to religious organizations not to be the religion itself--as it simply is for many hostile to religion--but the fact that this country has a massive welfare apparatus. Of course the argument over whether we should give money to religious organizations is going to come up--we're giving money to everyone else. Remove the money-giving and any perceived Establishment Clause problems magically vanish, but so often those wedded to crying "separation of church and state! Separation of church and state!" are the same folks who never saw a government program they didn't like.

As for these rapacious churches taking money, that doesn't jibe with my organization's paltry bank account and the level of commitment among the founders of the group, a level of commitment that far exceeds that of any government-run program in the area.

So if government is going to ladle out money, why shouldn't it be available to any group deemed not unduly proselytizing? Do you all really think that religious people don't bring their religion to secular institutions anyway?

And finally, a hypothetical: if a widow who is well-off signs her Social Security check every month and puts it in the church donation basket, is that okay?

First, I have seen plenty of government programs that I don't like. Second, let the religious organizations fundraise and get the money from their many followers. They get enough breaks from the government in regards to money. Lastly, the widow can do whatever she wants with her money. It's her check. She earned it. Telling her what to do with her social security check would be like trying to tell civil servants what to do with theri paychecks.

[ewokpelts]

Catholic and the Southern Baptist mega-churches aside, I can assure you that preachers are not driving Mercedes or BMW's.



Churches aren't the only ones...A catholic priest's salary aint enough to pay for a mercedes. the salary aint a lot, and the free room and board is now taxable(same as thier base salary).

[Dan Mega]

First, I have seen plenty of government programs that I don't like. Second, let the religious organizations fundraise and get the money from their many followers. They get enough breaks from the government in regards to money. Lastly, the widow can do whatever she wants with her money. It's her check. She earned it. Telling her what to do with her social security check would be like trying to tell civil servants what to do with theri paychecks.

And what if a small group of small churches, lets say 5, out in podunk Nowhereville wants to help out the poor and sick in their community. And then lets say their followers pretty much have no money. There are no other charities within the area for the needy to turn to. The business owners and well off in the area all hate religion, so they refuse to donate any of their time and money to help out. What then? Should our federal government say no just because they are a religious organization, thus eventually turning their backs on the needy? Or could they follow the procedures that Campbell outlined above and basically tell them they can have money to help out but it cannot be used expand their membership so to speak?

[maurice]

[some anti-discrimination rules]

But they can and do discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Should our federal government say no just because they are a religious organization, thus eventually turning their backs on the needy?

No, they should say "no" because that's a serious misuse of federal tax dollars, as are most of these programs. Big federal government is bad. Also, we have a huge budget deficit and a much much huger national debt.

Clarification: I am not opposed in principle to funneling fed tax dollars through private organizations, including religious organizations, for legitimate purposes, provided there is no unfair discrimination.

[1951Campbell]

But they can and do discriminate based on sexual orientation.


The grantwriter we work with and I expressly told them not to do that, for what it's worth. That ability is not long for this world, I suspect.

[maurice]

they should say "no" because that's a serious misuse of federal tax dollars, as are most of these programs. Big federal government is bad. Also, we have a huge budget deficit and a much much huger national debt.

It's funny/sad. People who disagree with this used to be called "tax-and-spend liberal Democrats." Now they're called "conservative Republicans." W has moved the GOP so far to the right that they're practically on the left.
:(

[gbergman]

George Bush is a moron what do you expect

[ewokpelts]

But they can and do discriminate based on sexual orientation.



No, they should say "no" because that's a serious misuse of federal tax dollars, as are most of these programs. Big federal government is bad. Also, we have a huge budget deficit and a much much huger national debt.

Clarification: I am not opposed in principle to funneling fed tax dollars through private organizations, including religious organizations, for legitimate purposes, provided there is no unfair discrimination.our deficit is so fucking high because the fucking retard president decided to declare war on the guy that tried to kill his daddy.....

[maurice]

Actually, he made the deficit worse right off the bat and kept making it worse on an annual basis through not only war, but also tax cuts, prescription drug benefits, etc.

I call him and his congressional buddies "cut-tax-and-spend Republicans."

[Prope]

No, they should say "no" because that's a serious misuse of federal tax dollars, as are most of these programs. Big federal government is bad. Also, we have a huge budget deficit and a much much huger national debt.

Clarification: I am not opposed in principle to funneling fed tax dollars through private organizations, including religious organizations, for legitimate purposes, provided there is no unfair discrimination.
Yeah, it's all right there. For as socially liberal as I am, I'm kind of a fiscally conservative.

What I find odd, is that I used to remember the right saying we shouldn't fund social programs, because religion and charity and private donations are better. Now, those same people on the right want to give federal money to the same organizations they say would never need it.

[Dan Mega]

What I find odd, is that I used to remember the right saying we shouldn't fund social programs, because religion and charity and private donations are better. Now, those same people on the right want to give federal money to the same organizations they say would never need it.

I remember the right in the 90's saying that the government shouldn't be throwing tons of money at failing social programs...

[Prope]

I remember the right in the 90's saying that the government shouldn't be throwing tons of money at failing social programs...
...because the church and privately funded social programs work better. Isn't this an admission that privately funded social programs through a church, maybe don't work?

[Palehose13]

...because the church and privately funded social programs work better. Isn't this an admission that privately funded social programs through a church, maybe don't work?

I'm with you. :shrug:

[Dan Mega]

...because the church and privately funded social programs work better. Isn't this an admission that privately funded social programs through a church, maybe don't work?

I'm not disputing this. Just recapping what I thought I remember politicians were saying in the 90's. Those were my highschool days. I did lots of drugs back then.

[samram]

I wonder if the Court may have been a bit wary of the thought of every limited government type racing to courthouses to object to federal funding of tons of programs based on constitutionality.

...because the church and privately funded social programs work better. Isn't this an admission that privately funded social programs through a church, maybe don't work?

Well, most people who advocate that envision a far lower tax burden on would be donors.