Should faith based charities receive government money?
Faith Based Charities
- Thread starter Nightingale
- Start date
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Now that you have picked yourself off the floor laughing, here is my real opinion! :rofl: :rofl:
I think that a charity is a charity, whether it is secular or religious. As long as the charity is legit and fits the government criteria for funding, then they should get the funding. It's not a mix of church and state as long as the Government is making funding decisions based off the established criteria, and not based off the religious faith who is operating the charity.
That's my general opinion, but I have never done a whole lot of research, or put a lot of thought into the subject. What brought this about, Nightengayle?
OP
OP
boredom.
and you just can't seem to spell my username right, can ya?
and you just can't seem to spell my username right, can ya?
OP
OP
personally, I don't mind govt. $ going to charities, but I would make sure that those charities aren't using the $$ to supplement preaching, but to provide services, especially when secular services are unavailable in the area.
running a food bank - OK
running a food bank but forcing the needy to listen to preaching while they eat - NOT OK.
running a food bank - OK
running a food bank but forcing the needy to listen to preaching while they eat - NOT OK.
T
TonyM.
Guest
My thoughts on charities are somewhat like nightingale's. I'd go farther and say that as long as they have mandatory religion classes in private schools they should recieve no government funds. I really believe in the constitution.
OP
OP
I don't think private schools should receive government funds. They're private businesses and should be treated accordingly.
I'm against it. this is just one more attempt by the religious right to gain a foothold in controling our lives. Imagine the hoops a statanist church would have to jump through to get any money. It wouldn't happen at all. This is an extreem example, but you don't know what axtreem is until the church gains control. 
M
MisterMike
Guest
Are there any charities that do get government money? I thought their money comes from the people. If they get no support, they fold.
If they do exist, then why is the government giving money to be redistributed by another organization, when it already has it's own programs in place? Maybe to reach another niche? Maybe so that those people get a little more by going to that charity's events which it sees as beneficial?
Lastly, if the ideals of that charity stem from some good guy's morals, or if they stem from religious beliefs, what's the difference? People who attend are being benefitted.
Other than the religious right's secret master plan to take over the world?
If they do exist, then why is the government giving money to be redistributed by another organization, when it already has it's own programs in place? Maybe to reach another niche? Maybe so that those people get a little more by going to that charity's events which it sees as beneficial?
Lastly, if the ideals of that charity stem from some good guy's morals, or if they stem from religious beliefs, what's the difference? People who attend are being benefitted.
Other than the religious right's secret master plan to take over the world?
They make it no secret.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
As always, I'm kinda curious--why exactly is it that anybody needs to announce what faith a charity represents?
I understand that chairites often announce their religious affiliation. Why? After all, aren't works of charity supposed to be done modestly, without announcement, in secret more or less? Sort of don't ask, don't tell, but tell the truth when asked?
I take this sort of thing as related to the Biblical injunction against making a public display of prayer. Why's it so important to announce your personal beliefs, when doing good works, if it's simply a matter of charity?
I understand that chairites often announce their religious affiliation. Why? After all, aren't works of charity supposed to be done modestly, without announcement, in secret more or less? Sort of don't ask, don't tell, but tell the truth when asked?
I take this sort of thing as related to the Biblical injunction against making a public display of prayer. Why's it so important to announce your personal beliefs, when doing good works, if it's simply a matter of charity?
M
MisterMike
Guest
I think that these groups want the donators to know where their money is going to. I think there's a difference if a church group wants to host an event vs. NAMBLA.
But who's announcing? Have you seen some TV ads I haven't? Mass mailings? USually you have to go to these places - they don't come to you. But I think any organization should be willing to tell of their ideals and goals, yes, even if they stem from the Bible.
Some of the donations go to the group to keep it running. Wouldn't people want to know where their money is going?
Oh I forgot, it's so the religious right can announce just who it is that is going to control all of our lives
If some unknown group says they are going to accept money and put it to work and show where all the money went on the books, that's fine and dandy. But I have no problem with a group announcing what faith they represent. Show me that the money is well-spent and I'm happy.
Christians are not disallowed from showing their faith outside of the church walls. It just so happens that a lot of charities are faith based.
It's like business without a mission statement. "Well, we just like making and selling stuff." Kind of empty don't you think?
But it is surely not to boast. (Not to say it doesn't ever happen, but does it mean they ALL do?)
You see the same behavior when Bill Gates donates 100 million to libraries. You know it's a plug for Microsoft. You hardly see an anonymous millionaire giving without some press coverage. I don't call a press release when I drop some change in a salvation army bucket.
But who's announcing? Have you seen some TV ads I haven't? Mass mailings? USually you have to go to these places - they don't come to you. But I think any organization should be willing to tell of their ideals and goals, yes, even if they stem from the Bible.
Some of the donations go to the group to keep it running. Wouldn't people want to know where their money is going?
Oh I forgot, it's so the religious right can announce just who it is that is going to control all of our lives
If some unknown group says they are going to accept money and put it to work and show where all the money went on the books, that's fine and dandy. But I have no problem with a group announcing what faith they represent. Show me that the money is well-spent and I'm happy.
Christians are not disallowed from showing their faith outside of the church walls. It just so happens that a lot of charities are faith based.
It's like business without a mission statement. "Well, we just like making and selling stuff." Kind of empty don't you think?
But it is surely not to boast. (Not to say it doesn't ever happen, but does it mean they ALL do?)
You see the same behavior when Bill Gates donates 100 million to libraries. You know it's a plug for Microsoft. You hardly see an anonymous millionaire giving without some press coverage. I don't call a press release when I drop some change in a salvation army bucket.
OP
OP
Bill Gates isn't being subsidized by tax dollars. Therein lies the difference.
M
MisterMike
Guest
I was only using him as an example of one drawing attention, but I'm sure he still gets quite a tax writeoff for such a thing.
However I do see the point that tax money is going to a "religious group" vs. a charity. But it's still a charity, just based off ideals from religion.
My pointis, if the gov't is goingto give the money, it shouldn't matter if it is a religion based charity or not.
Personally, I'd rather the government give us a tax break in the same amount, and let us decide where to give it.
However I do see the point that tax money is going to a "religious group" vs. a charity. But it's still a charity, just based off ideals from religion.
My pointis, if the gov't is goingto give the money, it shouldn't matter if it is a religion based charity or not.
Personally, I'd rather the government give us a tax break in the same amount, and let us decide where to give it.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
To me...a charity is a charity. If a group fits the secular criteria to get government subsidies, then what religion they represent should not matter.
If we decide to give government subsidies to secular charities ONLY, then we are now discriminating against religion and religious groups. We shouldn't mix church and state, but we shouldn't discriminate either.
The bottom line, I think, is that the criteria to follow to give government subsidies to "non-profit" organizations should be based on secular requirements, and therefore what "religion" the organization is or isn't shouldn't even come into play.
PAUL
If we decide to give government subsidies to secular charities ONLY, then we are now discriminating against religion and religious groups. We shouldn't mix church and state, but we shouldn't discriminate either.
The bottom line, I think, is that the criteria to follow to give government subsidies to "non-profit" organizations should be based on secular requirements, and therefore what "religion" the organization is or isn't shouldn't even come into play.
PAUL
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Upon reviewing this poll, I believe that it is both inaccurate and misleading! (although, I don't believe the thread starter intended to be misleading).
"Government giving subsidies to faith based charities" and "seperation of church and state" are seperate issues.
The poll says, "No....I think religion and government out to stay seperate." Of course more people are going to vote "No" because most people believe that religion and government should be seperate. THis is not the issue, though.
A religious organization recieving government subsidies is not a mixture of church and state in and of itself. Now, if the government criteria is discriminatory, and for example gives subsidies to Catholic organizations because of the denomination, but not to Mormon organizations because of denomination, then this type of discrimination would be unconstitutional. This goes both ways however; if government only gives subsidies to secular organizations, then it is discriminating against religious denominations of these charities.
The idea of not mixing church and state relates to Religious influence not controlling or imposing its power on our government. Government deciding to give subsidies to an organization (faith based or not) is not the same thing.
So, I think that the poll should have been worded, "No...Government should not give faith based organizations money, period!" or something like that.
"Government giving subsidies to faith based charities" and "seperation of church and state" are seperate issues.
The poll says, "No....I think religion and government out to stay seperate." Of course more people are going to vote "No" because most people believe that religion and government should be seperate. THis is not the issue, though.
A religious organization recieving government subsidies is not a mixture of church and state in and of itself. Now, if the government criteria is discriminatory, and for example gives subsidies to Catholic organizations because of the denomination, but not to Mormon organizations because of denomination, then this type of discrimination would be unconstitutional. This goes both ways however; if government only gives subsidies to secular organizations, then it is discriminating against religious denominations of these charities.
The idea of not mixing church and state relates to Religious influence not controlling or imposing its power on our government. Government deciding to give subsidies to an organization (faith based or not) is not the same thing.
So, I think that the poll should have been worded, "No...Government should not give faith based organizations money, period!" or something like that.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Well, then there's the whole Bob Jones University using tax dollars for financial aid, while prohibiting "inter-racial," dating...or Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition getting nailed by the IRS for violating their articles of incorporation as a non-profit...or the long sorry history of American missionaries...
I suppose you could argue that, "secular humanism," is a religion of a sort. But give me, say, Doctors Without Borders as a charity any day...
I suppose you could argue that, "secular humanism," is a religion of a sort. But give me, say, Doctors Without Borders as a charity any day...
M
MisterMike
Guest
Could be worse, could be tax dollars for abortion.
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=1499
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=1499
OP
OP
I'm pro-choice... BUT abortion is an elective procedure. You choose to have it, you pay for it.
