Why does the Catholic Church still receive federal funding?

[emacknight]

@villa

If that is really your view of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, that is disturbing to me. The government should be permitted to refuse to contract with Catholic Charities because it is Catholic?

Obviously in the current U.S. that isn’t going to happen. But a government refusing to contract with an Islamic group because it is Islamic is definitely plausible.

No, he’s not talking about First Amendment issues or anything to do with religion. He is stating that the government is free to give money and free to refuse money to anyone it wants.

A very straightforward and lawerly thing to say. Absolutely correct, yet entirely meaningless.

Reminds me of a joke: Three guys are in a hot air balloon. A strong wind pushes them off course and when they finally land in a farmer’s field they ask, “where are we.”

His reply, “you’re in a hot air ballooon.”

What’s significant here is that we’re not talking about hypotheticals. Congress specifically targeted ACORN for the reasons Shodan outlined above.

So we have an action: Withdrawal of funding for a charity.
To which I ask, was there a reason: Accusations of child prostitution, theft from the organization, a cover up of that theft, and issues of contract employees falsifying voter registration forms that were then flagged by ACORN.

Now, are there any other organizations or charities that engage in similar or worse actions? Well, if you count child molestation to be worse than reporting fraudulent voter registration cards, then yes.

Has Congress acted consistently with that charity?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Bricker is Catholic. I believe his point is that the government should be permitted to refuse to contract with Catholic Charities because it is a religious organization.

I fully agree - in fact, government funding of Catholic Charities is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, in my book.

I don’t agree with the latter statement. The government is certainly free to contract with Catholic Charities without offending the First Amendment. If the government wishes to hire a contractor to, say, run a homeless shelter, and they lay out the requirements for that shelter, and invite organizations to bid, and Catholic Charities provides the best-value bid, the government can certainly award the contract to them.

The government may also decide that they don’t wish to award to any religious organizations. They may not, then, exclude only Catholic Charities, but must exclude all religious organizations.

Either path is acceptable.

[emacknight]

@Bricker

The government may also decide that they don’t wish to award to any religious organizations. They may not, then, exclude only Catholic Charities, but must exclude all religious organizations.

Ah, so consistency is important? Such as if the government specifically targets an organization for [what ever reason Shoden thinks] they should also target other organizations that engage in similar or worse transgressions?

[Bricker]

@emacknight

Has Congress acted consistently with that charity?

It depends.

“30% of all accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means that 70% are caused by sober drivers. Therefore, drunks are the safer drivers!”

So the answer to your question depends on what Congress’ criteria was. If Congress decided that the percentage of bad apples at Catholic Charities was tiny compared to their overall work, and the percentage of bad apples at ACORN was unacceptably high, they could have acted as they did. You’ve identified instances of misconduct at each organization without reference to the overall size of the organization. If three priests out of one hundred thousand employed by Catholic Charities were accused, and three ACORN workers out of one thousand were accused, Congress is entitled to look beyond “3=3,” and say instead “3 out of one thousand is much greater than 3 out of one hundred thousand.”

[Bricker]

@emacknight

Ah, so consistency is important? Such as if the government specifically targets an organization for [what ever reason Shoden thinks] they should also target other organizations that engage in similar or worse transgressions?

In my example, consistency is important because it intersects with religious practice, an area in which the Constitution commands the government to remain neutral.

The Constitution does not mandate consistency in all things.

[Ludovic]

@emacknight

Well, since all we’re concerned about are allegations, here was an accusation against a priest at Catholic Charity. Should have been enough to ACORN them? Or does it make more sense to wait until after the facts are revealed?

I’m imagining a video of getting out of a car with half-blackface on and a white glove, moonwalking toward the charity. Followed by video with such damning quotes as “I don’t think you should [assume that just because we are Catholic we will provide you with what you seek, as a matter of fact, we strongly advise you to] stop molesting little boys”. CC will go down in a week.

[emacknight]

@Bricker

It depends.

“30% of all accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means that 70% are caused by sober drivers. Therefore, drunks are the safer drivers!”

So the answer to your question depends on what Congress’ criteria was. If Congress decided that the percentage of bad apples at Catholic Charities was tiny compared to their overall work, and the percentage of bad apples at ACORN was unacceptably high, they could have acted as they did. You’ve identified instances of misconduct at each organization without reference to the overall size of the organization. If three priests out of one hundred thousand employed by Catholic Charities were accused, and three ACORN workers out of one thousand were accused, Congress is entitled to look beyond “3=3,” and say instead “3 out of one thousand is much greater than 3 out of one hundred thousand.”

Okay, so we have an accused drunk driver sentenced to death.
And we have a repeatedly convicted drunk driver given no consequence.

If we take your “3=3” at face value (which we shouldn’t because there is no indication Congress even considered it), shouldn’t they at least remain consistent with that!

I guess what I’m say is that when enough priests molest enough boys…

wait, I’m confused, does it have to be the number of pedophile priests? Or does it have to be the number of victims? Or is it number of accusations?

…doesn’t matter, what I’m saying is that when another organization reaches the “3=3” rule, do you think Congress should revoke their funding?

And I guess what I’m really saying is did ACORN even meet the “3=3” rule?

[villa]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I fully agree - in fact, government funding of Catholic Charities is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, in my book.

But you don’t agree with me here. I think Catholic Charities can be funded under certain circumstances without a violation of the First Amendment, provided they are treated in a religious neutral manner - just like any other contractor, and subject to the same legal restrictions as any other contractor (including non-descrimination clauses).

[villa]

@emacknight

No, he’s not talking about First Amendment issues or anything to do with religion. He is stating that the government is free to give money and free to refuse money to anyone it wants.

A very straightforward and lawerly thing to say. Absolutely correct, yet entirely meaningless.

But it isn’t absolutely correct. The government isn’t free to refuse money for “any reason.” Just like it isn’t free to give money for “any reason.” It can only refuse or award money on grounds that do not violate the constitution. And awarding/refusing money to a group because of the religion of that group is a constitutional no-no.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@villa

But you don’t agree with me here. I think Catholic Charities can be funded under certain circumstances without a violation of the First Amendment, provided they are treated in a religious neutral manner - just like any other contractor, and subject to the same legal restrictions as any other contractor (including non-descrimination clauses).

They’re not subject to the same legal restrictions as any other contractor, however; they are tax exempt.

[villa]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

They’re not subject to the same legal restrictions as any other contractor, however; they are tax exempt.

Which I believe is unconstitutional to the extent that “religion” is tax exempt. I’m fine with a Catholic school being tax exempt when other schools are, or a Catholic soup kitchen etc. I just wouldn’t make “religion” one of the grounds for tax exemption.

I think the constitutional problem doesn’t come from government financing (never thought I would say that) - it comes from an unequal treatment of religion (Establishment). If churches are treated the same as other organizations, I have no constitutionally based problem with them receiving federal funding for non-religious activity.

[emacknight]

@villa

But it isn’t absolutely correct. The government isn’t free to refuse money for “any reason.” Just like it isn’t free to give money for “any reason.” It can only refuse or award money on grounds that do not violate the constitution. And awarding/refusing money to a group because of the religion of that group is a constitutional no-no.

Sure, but that’s not really the point here, constitutionality isn’t the issue.

Congress made a very grandiose gesture towards ACORN, a charitable organization accused of various crimes.

I find this action very puzzling because there are so many other charitable organizations with employees convicted of crimes that are far worse than ACORN.

So it seems like we should treat all charitable organizations receiving federal funds the same, and thus fund or remove funding consistently.

If you remove funding from a charity because “there was a crime and a cover-up” then remove funding from ALL charities that have a crime followed by cover-up. Establish a rule, then follow it.

[Magiver]

@emacknight

Sure, but that’s not really the point here, constitutionality isn’t the issue.

Congress made a very grandiose gesture towards ACORN, a charitable organization accused of various crimes.

It wasn’t just what they were convicted of, it was what they did when they weren’t squandering public money. This organization was responsible for promoting bad housing loans. It was also one of many organizations that were and are probably still using tax money to fund voter registration efforts that are decidedly one-sided in nature.

[Evil_Captor]

C’mon. The Catholic Church has ALL KINDS of political muscle, though admittedly the pedophile preists and the way the leadership enabled their pedophilia has weakened it somewhat. As long as the Catholic faithful continue to support the pedophile enablers who lead them uncritically, Catholic Charities will continue to receive funding.

[gonzomax]

@Bricker

If your analogy is ACORN, then the reason would be: ACORN hasn’t lost their tax-exempt status.

They have merely been destroyed. Lets do the same for the church.

[emacknight]

@Magiver

It wasn’t just what they were convicted of, it was what they did when they weren’t squandering public money. This organization was responsible for promoting bad housing loans. It was also one of many organizations that were and are probably still using tax money to fund voter registration efforts that are decidedly one-sided in nature.

Oooooooh, so that’s why they were destroyed: Squandering public money, promoting bad housing loans, using federal funds for voter registration that was one sided. I don’t need a cite, I’ll take your word for it.

So when I was told it was because of theft/cover-up, voter fraud, and helping pimps, I was being lied to.

In any case, the actual reason isn’t significant, it’s consistency that I’m after. We’ve established that if a charitable organization is accused of X, Y, and Z, than Congress will destroy them. This was found to be legal, constitutional, and well within the powers of Congress. It also made a lot of the voting public extremely happy.

So, if another organization is accused of X, Y, and Z, I would expect Congress to act consistently, and for people to be equally happy.

Further to that, if X, Y, and Z are bad enough to get the attention of Congress, surely acts worse than X, Y, and Z, should also get Congress’ attention. To me it seems logical that acts worse than X, Y, and Z would get a harsher punishment, but not necessary.

I like Bricker’s drunk driving example. We have a police check point where a guy comes through and blows 0.05. He is subsequently taken to the side of the road and shot. Meanwhile, someone else blows 1.5 (and several children) and his given a pass. That’s how I see it. Obviously 0.05 was wrong, and deserves punitive action. The 1.5 is also wrong, and possibly more wrong, so it should at least deserve the same punitive action as the 0.05.

[emacknight]

@Shodan

The founder of ACORN covered up the fact that his brother stole somewhere around a million dollars. His brother was also an employee and leader in ACORN. According to you, this is not serious enough to warrant withholding federal money. So you are contradicting yourself.

Regards,
Shodan

When I was growing up, my friends and I LOVED playing Monopoly. But when ever we played at my house my mom forced us to include my whiny little brother. Not a big deal because he always lost. But what used to bother us was his insistence that we use the “made up free parking rule” that had money piled into the center then given out to the person that lands on free parking.

So we’d start playing, and eventually he’d land on free parking and rake in all that money, then spend a lot of time gloating about it. Eventually someone else would land on it and take in a bigger toll, mostly because my brother would subsequently get the “pay income tax” and have to put most of his winnings back into the middle.

Except, when someone else landed on free parking he’d freak out, grab the rule book, and suddenly declare that it’s not in the rules. He didn’t want the rule applied equally to all players, when it was convenient to him he loved the free parking rule, when it was going to hurt him he looked for reasons to deny it to other players.

Congress just did that. They made up and applied a rule to ACORN, but when you step back and look at the rule, it turns out it can be applied to all sorts of other players. I chose the Catholic Church, it’s charitable organizations, and it’s schools because, well, it’s easy.

I don’t give a fuck what rule you decide to play with. But once we start playing, and the rules are laid out, it is not contradictory for me to think the free parking rule is stupid and also make use of it when I land there. Especially when you’ve already landed there and we happy to take the money.

Regardless of what I think, we have now established that theft and cover-up was serious enough to warrant withholding federal money (or what ever it was they did). So surely any other organization that does something similar (or worse) should also lose federal money.

I guess I’m just weird to think that the rape and molestation of young boys (along with the cover up) is worse than what ever it is that got ACORN acorned.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Magiver

It wasn’t just what they were convicted of, it was what they did when they weren’t squandering public money. This organization was responsible for promoting bad housing loans. It was also one of many organizations that were and are probably still using tax money to fund voter registration efforts that are decidedly one-sided in nature.

Yes; they were trying to register poor and minority voters, who are grossly underrepresented among registered voters relative to their representation among the general populace. What’s wrong with that?

ETA: they’re not still using tax money for anything. They closed their doors on March 22nd (unsurprisingly, after losing 72% of their revenue stream overnight).

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

They’re not subject to the same legal restrictions as any other contractor, however; they are tax exempt.

Catholic Charities is tax-exempt for the same reason ACORN was tax-exempt – it’s a charity.* The Government does business with lots of charities.

*Strictly speaking, many of the individual ACORN affiliates were tax-exempt charities, while the umbrella organization was a tax-exempt civic organization, but the basic point stands.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Right, but villa’s point was that he doesn’t mind government contracts being awarded to religious organizations if they’re subject to the same restrictions as other contractors. They’re not, except for other charitable contractors.