Interestingly enough, I have long made it my policy * never * to give money to any charitable organization that springs from a church. Not just to be rude, but because I have always been offended by the willingness of some religious organizations to use charity as a tool to shove their religion down needy people’s throats. That irritates the hello outta me.
You want to feed the hungry, then just feed them, don’t make them listen to your stupid sermon first. Go ahead and leave your door open and tell him who fed 'em if you want, but leave it at that.
The fact that the government is seeking to do what I will not do privately, and spit on the constitutional separation of church and state in the process, makes me seethe.
Doing something nice for someone because your religion tells you it is a good thing is a fabulous sign of tenderness. Doing something nice for someone with strings attached (You must sing this song) is a pointless trade – you trade your food for their outward acquiescence.
I just saw or heard an piece in the past two weeks on this. The Scientologist are indeed ready to claim their grants for Narconon. The guy they interviewed from the CoS was quite exicited by the “opportunity.” Can’t remember where I saw/heard it through, probably NPR.
The administration is already deciding what is a worthy religion and what is not, based on the precise philisophical tool of “lobbying”.
Don’t take this as an endorsement of the Nation of Islam, but note that nobody has said they are unworthy of funding because their charitable programs aren’t effective. It is clear that they are being denied funding because of their beliefs.
And you still haven’t explained what would prevent Eve, or the Right Reverend Tim and I from setting up a community service program through the Church of Satan and getting subsidized for it.
That is, after all, what this bullshit is supposed to be about, isn’t it?
Just for informational purposes, an alternative method available in the UK:
You pay tax on your income in the usual way to Government >
You make a donation to a charity of your choice from your disposable income >
Charity receives the money, then claims from Government the amount of tax you paid when earning the amount you contributed >
Government adds 10% to that sum.
In effect, tax free giving plus a Government donation of 10%
Seemed a good idea to reduce Government influence so they wouldn’t be tempted to determine eligibility and entitlement according to their political agenda.
I don’t believe Any satanist would sponsor a soup kitchen.
Their beleifs are pretty much survival of the smartest and strongest, every man for himself.
Sofa King: Church of the Sofa?
I suppose the change under the couch pillows would be tithes.
Bush received quite a bit of support from Pat Robertson and the Christian coalition. He therefore owes them. What Pat Robertson wants to do is amend the faith based initiative to exclude what he doesn’t consider churches. He also want to amend it to limit government control of how the money is spent. You can read Robertson’s thoughts on the subject here patrobertson .
Another interesting reading is from The Interfaith Alliance – Oppose the “Charitable Choice” Provisions in the Watts-Hall Bill, H.R. 7 . They list some very compelling reason why this initive stinks. Such as taxpayer dollars supporting discrimination. Currently churchs are exempt from discrimination laws, but should that continue when government money is being used to fund their community programs? The complete article http://www.interfaithalliance.org/Initiatives/clergy_ltr.html
From an Article in Liberty Magazine “There are also issues raised about the fungibility of money provided to religious charities. If faith-based organizations are able to use federal funds for their “secular” charitable activities, funds that they had previously used for those activities will be freed up to be used by their religious activities, essentially taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. In a real sense, the effect would be the same as if the federal government were directly funding the religious activities. This is what the Supreme Court has called “a legalistic minuet.” In fact, this is exactly the same logic that President Bush used in barring government funds to organizations that provide abortion counseling overseas.” The article http://www.libertymagazine.org/issues/current/article2.html
