Opinion Talk

By Reathel

March 14, 2006 08:34 PM | Link to this

Yes, No reason to discriminate because they believe in God. We all have different views. Should others be discriminated against because they believe in Satan, or because they believe in Allah. I believe in certain things that I am sure others do not hold the same view. Where does this madness end. If faith based groups cannot recieve public money, then faith based citizen should not have to pay taxes

By Syed

March 14, 2006 09:03 PM | Link to this

I think not. Doesn’t matter what you believe, God or Satan, that’s up to you, but you don’t deserve public money for that. Public money is for Common Public interest.

By Court

March 14, 2006 09:10 PM | Link to this

Reathel, says why we should not with a blanket approval of Satanism and Islam being eqaul recipiants with Christian groups to public funds. This govermnment help and funding to religious groups is a betrayal of the idea of separation of church and state. This is one of Bush’s worst proposals. Instead of allowing the ‘melting pot’ of America to assimilate, reject, or embrace a certain faith these inititives would have the government essentially playing the ‘bank’ with religion — or in effect, government would be the principle diety: clearly not what the framers intended nor what the Constitution allows. Also, it’d unfairly prop up certain religions that by rights of the majority of public contempt should bite the dust. Treating a religion as a race or ethnic group is a great evil.

By Laf

March 14, 2006 10:28 PM | Link to this

No! Seperation of church and state is being destroyed by this current administration. Please don’t make me pray to the governments God before i receive the bowl of soup.

By Chris

March 15, 2006 12:15 AM | Link to this

Of course they should. Faith based groups provide great services that are much needed. Only the anti-religion folks say no. Their hatred for religion exceeds their desire to help the unfortunate. A little ironic, don’t you think? Public money is for the common public interest, as someone said, and all charities provide for the common public interest.

By ChrisD

March 15, 2006 12:18 AM | Link to this

Of course they should. Faith-based organizations provide much needed services to the unfortunate. Those who say no are the typical anti-religion folks. Their hatred for religion exceeds their desire to help the unfortunate. Kind of hypocritical, huh? As some said above, public money is for the common public interest, and faith based organizations provide for the common public interest.

By ChrisD

March 15, 2006 12:18 AM | Link to this

Of course they should. Faith-based organizations provide much needed services to the unfortunate. Those who say no are the typical anti-religion folks. Their hatred for religion exceeds their desire to help the unfortunate. Kind of hypocritical, huh? As some said above, public money is for the common public interest, and faith based organizations provide for the common public interest.

By Mara

March 15, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

Nope. But my objections are not because they are “religious” groups (which really is the fundi codeword for christian…) it is because no government money should go to groups who are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. When a tax-funded group of Baptists can refuse to hire a Jew, simply because they are a Jew…that crosses the line. And Chris, no. faith based organizations provide for the common public interest. Actually, they pander to a very narrow group, usually favoring those who believe as the “charity” believes. Look at the situation in Boston where the Catholic Charities has decided to cease their adoption program rather than follow the government anti-discrimination guidelines. Evidently it’s better for hard-to-place children to languish is state custody than for them to be placed in a stable, loving home that just happens to be headed by persons that the Catholic church deems to “unacceptable”.

“Common good” usually refers to “good for all citizens” not just “good for folk who agree with my religious views.” NO GOVERNMENT MONEY FOR DISCRIMINATION!!!

By NotMyProblem

March 15, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

Yes, it should go to faith-based groups. After all, if we all had the power to choose which groups should and shouldn’t receive our tax dollars, I’d bet there are a lot of people who would choose not to let their dollars go towards welfare programs or health-care services for illegal aliens. Since making that choice isn’t possible for us taxpayers, it is only fair that we don’t discriminate in the selection of the groups and programs that do receive those dollars. I’d rather my money go towards a religious group, no matter what religion it is (well, anything besides Islam), than pay for the lifestyle of the 16 year old mother with three kids by three different daddies.

By Mara

March 15, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

Reathel - If faith based groups cannot recieve public money, then faith based citizen should not have to pay taxes

Nor should they use the roads, expect police and fire protection, or have homes equiped with running water and are connected to the city sewage system. They shouldn’t expect their food to be inspected, their medicine to be safe, or their schools to be adequate. Dumb-a*.

Charity is the least of the services that taxes provide.

By Brian Curtis

March 15, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

What’s funny is that the folks who want our public funds to go to faith-based groups (because “they help people,” you see)…

…are also the people who want to tear down all our social programs—because they help people, and that’s wrong.

Pretty blatant attempt to set up federal funding of Christianity for its own sake, don’t you think? Or else that’s the problem—the zealots assume we DON’T think.

Darn that pesky ol’ Constitution!

By Mara

March 15, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

Brian C - LOL on that “pesky ol’ Constitution”!!

By Thomas

March 15, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Absolutely not.

If one chooses to dedicate Sunday mornings to their own suppositious exploits in a tax exempt nonprofit corporation, so be it – but don’t ask the federal government to subsidize its proselytizing.

The “faith-based initiative” is codeword for grants to Christian charities. Something tells me the average Southern Baptist would be appalled at “THEIR” tax dollars being given to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Pagan organizations. After all, (with my best deep Southern drawl), “Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, is the way, the truth and the life. No man may come to the father but through him.”

The position of the federal government on religion and religious charities should be neutral.

By Van

March 15, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Just from a different point of view.

Federal money should not be spent on “charity” works(for lack of a better phrase).

Looking at the words of the Constitution the federal government should not be in the business of helping people who are in need.

Of course that is not the case today. Over the years we have instituted welfare and other social causes and programs.

In an ideal world, charity work should be the province of the states and other charity groups. The people of the US are a very giving people as shown in the aftermath of 9/11, the tsunami and Katrina, Rita, Wilma and other natural disasters.

We have all seen the Red Cross and the Salvation Army helping.

The difference is these organizations are much more efficient than the Feds.

I would propose the feds give the states block grants for “charity” work and let the states determine which non government agencies should receive money. We might even save money and help more people.

By chidog

March 15, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Chris,

I resent your sweeping characterization that anyone opposed to public money going to religious organizations is anti-religion. I am a religious person who believes in what the founding fathers set up - separation of church and state. It is funny to me that so many “religious” people invoke the intent of the founding fathers when it serves their purpose, but not in all cases. The problem is you have opinions like NotmyProblem that say yes any religion (except Islam). Soon they will say (except Jews), or so on and so on. And Brian you hit the nail right on the head - they want to help people, but only people they deem deserving (the ones that think like them).

By kimberly

March 15, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

NO! They also should not be tax-exempt. Churches utilize infrastructure, utilities, police and fire departments, and benefit from the economic well-being of their communities. They should pay taxes like everyone else. They should work with what they’ve got, and our TAX money should go to improving schools and bolstering the teaching profession where it might actually do some good!

By Syed

March 15, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

chidog , kimberly Well said, “except Jews” will be followed by “except Blacks” then “Except colored” . So, at the edn, Govt would end up fUnding KKK . Now that says how bad we need more funding on Education.

By Just Me

March 15, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

First of all let me say that I am a Christiain. With that, and my second point..I do not believe that “faith based” organizations should receive public money. I too believe in honoring the constitutional concept of separation of church and state. One thing the really gets me about so-called “Christians” is the “because I/we say so it’s right” attitude. This ill bourne self-righteousness along with the assumption or statement that those who do not embrace christianity are religious haters, when the Bible itslef simply refers to those types as “unbelievers” and still expresses and encourages hope for them.

So-called christians need to stop trying to BE so RELIGIOUS and simply start applying the christian principles in their lives. People will know you are a christian by the fruit you bear. And with this, if the “church” would only learn to give not begrudgingly or out of necessity but of a cheerful spirit; AND the so called church leaders actually used the money they way it is intended instead of pursuing lavish lifestyles, there would be no need for outside money from the government to do the work. Period.

By candide

March 15, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Never underestimate the evil that do-gooders equipped with bibles can do.

By E. Lewis

March 15, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Only as long as they meet the same standards and oversight as their secular counterpart.

If faith based groups want to do things their way and don’t want the taxpayers and government looking over their operations then they need to go elsewhere for funding.

By RWH

March 15, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

We are our own worse enemy; we don’t want people to have an equal share of the Tax paying big pot of funds. Faith-based should be no different. We have issues that we all need to solve. Addressing them is to far behind; we need to quickly move and catch-up because we all are losing the common-grounds which we once stand. Everything has the dollar-sign; can we every to something that is forthright without using a lot of red tape? We are about to price ourselves right out of the world we know. Things do not have to be expensive as business keep passing their duties on to the consumers and the consumers are beginning to move in the other direction. People who get free monies cause other to want the same. Entitlements is the key. We live in a society where we hate to see other get ahead and we cannot. I always say…join them in the best means you know how. You to have the rights to the “slice of the pie”. You don’t have to be “faith-based” either.

By Van

March 15, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

candide, never underestimate the evil men can do when money is involved. It isn’t just the religious, the amoral are just as wicked.

By Brian Curtis

March 15, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Van: Are you putting “religious” and “amoral” in separate categories? I’ve seen plenty of crossover, and some of the most moral people I know have no religious faith at all.

By candide

March 15, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

van: the opposite of religious is secular, not amoral. You are good at loading the dices unfairly.

By J&J Ranch

March 15, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Many of you have very good points.

The thing that came to me first when I read the statements made was that I agree with most of you. You don’t have to be a “Bible thumper” to be honest, moral, better than the average person.

There was a church in Marietta, Everlasting Living Waters Church, Frank Lillig, III Pastor.

This “Pastor” has a fulltime job at Lockheed as an auditor and another title that slip my mind currently. Living in a $320,000.00 home, runs a landscaping company through the church and several family members buy vehicles claiming they are for church use (a lie). Lillig’s mother-in-law would go to Kroger several times every week to get the day-old baked goods. She claimed that it was to go to the poor.

Our aunt used to come home loaded with the stuff. Our Aunt then went on to explain that Mavis would bring home the baked goods, the extended family would pick out what they wanted. The church group picked out what they wanted, then it was taken to a building that had been donated and sold for contributions. And these are supposed to be extremely religious people? I want no part of that! The hungry, who the goods were for, never saw the food.

I have first hand knowledge of some of the things Lillig ran through the Church for “write-off’s).
Another thing I disapproved of…When our aunt was having her taxes done several years ago, there was a tax receipt provided by the church. She had given a contribution of $500.00, (we took it out of the bank for her) in return she had been provided with a receipt for $950.00, not $500.00. Our aunt informed us that Bob knows how to “cook the books” and Lillig was able to use the money for personal use. Of course we discussed this with the CPA doing her taxes. We ended up having nothing claimed instead.

I am not sure what happened to the church, but after our aunt had a mysterious accidental death, he Lillig was named as Administrator on a new Will she had made after she had been diagnosed: mid-mild cognitive, symbolic disorder, immobility syndrome and who knows what else.

The “Pastor” and his extended families had shuffled our aunt away, kept all knowledge of her and her whereabouts from all family. She died, no family informed, created, buried in a place different from her wishes and all information covered up. We loved her and miss her very much!

By Mara

March 15, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

sorry to hear about your aunt J&J. Even though I am an agnostic, I do know that there are some religious people who do try to live as though God was watching them. Most don’t, but some do.

By Van

March 15, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

candide my reference is to people without morals, crooks. You don’t have to be religious to be moral, as I have been told here.

By Van

March 15, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, candide made a reference to the religious can be evil, I just added that the amoral, without morals are wicked also.

I purposely excluded the moral, moral folks would not work the system to make themselves rich at the expense of the tax payer.

By Brian Curtis

March 15, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Van: Fair enough. No harm done.

By Mara

March 15, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

Van, whose definition of “moral” are we speaking of? I know that some of the things I believe to be right and proper are considered by others to be gravely immoral. So…who gets to define what is moral, and by implication, paint those who disagree as immoral?

By Giovanni

March 15, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

No, churches should not be recieving money from the state. The question i would pose to readers is what is happening to the tithes that we as worshippers provide? I was under the assumption that those funds were used to help others less fortunate! Or are our ministers concerned in keeping a life of material wealth. There is a reason why the line between church and state should never be blurred read the newspapers and learn from what is happening in the middle east

By UGAHydro

March 15, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Let’s do a logic tree, shall we? The American Civil Liberties Union believes in the importance of civil liberties. Rep. Keen asserts that the ACLU is a ‘liberal’ organization. Rep. Keen would not likely describe himself as a ‘liberal’. Ergo, can we assume that Rep. Keen does not believe in the importance of civil liberties? He does, however, appear to believe that Jesus weaned his son off drugs. Another Republican with a shaky connection to reality.

Now, how big an umbrella is this ‘faith based’ definition? Wiccan groups? Scientology? I rather doubt it.

By Van

March 15, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Mara, moral people can be anyone. Those that are dishonest about their agenda, say one thing and do another, people that do not care what happens as long as they are okay, might be concidered amoral, without morals.

One of the points I was trying to get across, is that moral folks, donate to the great causes, as I said, 9/11, tsumami and the hurricanes that tore up the gulf states.

Then you have the ones that scammed the government out of money, I think it was reported that about 900,000 people used false id or lied to get fema money. Those I would say are lacking in any moral fiber.

In the current debate, there has been no talk on what the end result we are trying for. You have one group shouting “separation of church and state”, you have another saying “Faith based” is code words for christian only, and other nonsence.

Remove the veil of politics and what is it we are trying to accomplish. Should charity and/or social programs be local or not?

Should the federal government be involved in these works or should your state be involved?

I had stated earlier that it should be local and the feds should not be involved in any way, as efficient as they are, lets keep them out of as much as possible.

By Mara

March 15, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Van, we can brush aside the definition of “moral” for now, if you like.

The problem with leaving the social or charitable organizations to local control is that quite often intolerance, bigotry, and out-n-out discrimination are condoned or ignored by local authorities as being “just the way things are around here”. With federal oversight, at least local prejudices are curtailed if not completely eliminated.

By Van

March 15, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Mara, and when the federal government gets involved we see vast amounts of money wasted.

This is the same government you want running social programs? I thought the left leaning people(progressives) thought the feds were incompetant fools.

At the local level we can vote out a scum bag or at least have a chance of them being arrested. In DC, they get another term.

By NotMyProblem

March 15, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

Actually, Chidog, I’d be happy to leave it at deny funding to “any religion that doesn’t advocate the murder and destruction of people who don’t believe in Allah, and any religion that doesn’t riot, doesn’t burn buildings, torture and demean women and doesn’t kill people because of a cartoon.” That should clarify a bit more. That’s not a religion. That’s the behavior of primative people who haven’t evolved along with the rest of us. And no, I dont’ think they should get any taxpayer funding. Any true religion getting my tax dollars is fine with me.

By NotMyProblem

March 15, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

DON’T deny funding to “any religion that doesn’t advocate the murder and destruction of people who don’t believe in Allah, and any religion that doesn’t riot, doesn’t burn buildings, torture and demean women and doesn’t kill people because of a cartoon.”

By time for the truth

March 15, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

as an avowedly secular conservative and someone who loathes the smug/dogmatic religious right I object to “faith based” .orgs getting public money. Perhaps exceptions could me made in one off national/state emergencies like say another Katrina type scenario but religion of any kind should NOT play a role in administering social programmes. Clearly politically administered federal and local council/city hall programmes are often poor and corrupt/wasteful examples but at least they dont inject religious dogma into it. The Sally Army as its called in the UK (where it was “invented”) used to insist on attendance of religious services for those who needed their soup kitchens, no dogam, no soup. Essentially religious groups still push their dogma on the needy, perhaps in slightly less overt ways. Vulnerable people need protection from religious zealouts and folks who can’t or won’t stop “witnessing”. All organised religion is man made dogma … a simple historical critique shows that the major western religions borrowed/stole/adopted etc their dogma, rites, beliefs, practice and so on from previous mind control systems. There is not ONE original Christian rite/belief.

By Syed

March 15, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

I usually don’t respond to BIGOTS, but in NotMyProblem case, I will. Let’s consider Last 100 years. Nazis killed millions of Jews, and they were White Christians. USA bombed japan with atomic bombs, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, White Christians.Tim Mcvay killed around 300 peole with Eric Rudolf help, again White Christians.Needless to say about KKK. Can you please do the math , although I doubt you have that much education. Please give a approximate number of innocent peoeple killed by White Christians and by Muslim Terrorist. Also, add all the White Christians involved in those crimes and add all the muslims involved on similar kind.

By time for the truth

March 15, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

Syed … Hiroshima and Nagasaki were undeniably militarily necessary. A mainland invasion of Japan would have cost millions of extra (Allied) lives, as well as Japanese civilians, the Japs would not have surrendered as they did without a very severe lesson. Given they were the aggressors and exceedingly brutal ones at that clearly something far beyond carpet bombing and threats of invasion was called for. The A bombs shortend the war by a considerable period and saved many lives. Look up the congressional hearings into the subject. The US didn’t bomb the Japs because they were christians, the Nazis didn’t commit genocide because they were christians - nor did the Japs - it was purely political imperialism, driven by their twisted, evil sense of complete superiority over those whom they vanquished - for a while at least. Just because someone who happens to be a muslim, christian, jew etc kills dont assume that it is “implicitly” because of their religion. Bin laden and saddam are muslims, so were abu nidal, arafat, nasser, timor the terrible et al. Rudolph was clearly an obsessed nutter, as was Mcvay - who obsessively hated the government.

By Syed

March 15, 2006 07:57 PM | Link to this

time for the truth You got it wrong, I was just making a point to Mr. NotMyProblem that terrorist are terrorist, criminals are criminals, religion has nothing to do with this. I agree with you all point except the A bomb thing. Had they drop on a military place, it would be ok, but dropping an A bomb intended to kill people regardless is genocide to me. I disagree it wasn’t necessarry to end the war. At the time of A bomb, the war was almost over. If , in a war, you kill civilian unintentionaly, that’s acceptable, But they knew it was gonna kill civilians in thousands , yet they did it, in my opinion, that’s mass killing, genocide. But we all know, winners write the history of war.

By Ga Liberal

March 15, 2006 09:14 PM | Link to this

No taxpayer money should go to ‘faith-based groups.’ This is simply a euphomism for government-sponsored religion and that’s not the reason this country was founded. Public money should be given only to groups that will treat all people equally. Time and again religious groups have proven their ‘values’ become defacto requirements to receive services. Even if the law specifically forbid this practice, I would still be against providing these groups public funds. This is a slippery slope to a theocratic government and state-sanctioned religion.

By Brian Curtis

March 16, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

And what religion would it be? Certainly not “Christianity,” since anyone who actually follows the example of Jesus wouldn’t be trying to break down the church/state barrier this way.

By Van

March 16, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Syed,

Talk about bigotry, all those comments thrown around about white christians. Is that the new smear phrase for american? Sounds very one sided to me.

By Syed

March 16, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Van I am a very very liberal muslims, most of my friends are american christians, both black and whites. You missed the part, what I said was directed to ‘NotMyProblem’ guy. He seems to be a Bigot in my opinion, i was just pointing to some facts to him and showing him that criminals are criminals, you can’t put a religion or race tag on any one of those which he was trying to do. Read my other blogs, and the WHOLE blogs.

By Lyrazel

March 17, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

Isnt the government already giving faith-based charities and churches money by not taxing their income and profits? Well if the government gives money to these charities are they charities or just recipients of government aid? Most people think of large charity organizations but really how many little churches, synagogs, mosques, temples do community work? Almost all do, right? While visiting small towns in GA try and count the amount of tiny churches those tiny dime a dozen, seven on every block type, everyone knows there are more churches than bars in Savannah for example. Now with government-subsidized church charity funding anyone who wants to become a benefactor can apply for a grant of funds to help the community—and $$$ flows. Its far too easy to abuse such unwarranted funding with so many floating in the landscape never being taxed. As taxpayers start tithing to the government (for if our taxes already are spent funding church charity why need to give at church second time?) what God would object?

Now… NAME ONE GOVERNMENT SOCIAL PROGRAM THAT HAS NOT SEEN MASSIVE FUNDING CUTS and ask yourself WHERE IS THIS NEW CHARITY MONEY GOING TO COME FROM? dont know? Sweety its politics as usual…a good PR opportunity—all flash and no substance.

By Syed

March 17, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel Well said, I agree with you. Let me give you my personal experience what govt money is spent for. I used to see this girl, she is a ‘graduate’ from a christian college, a college run by a chucrh. And they are taught, that all these moon landing, scientific development, mars landing, rockets, these are all govt made up stories, there is no moon, mars etc, because they are not in the bible. Also, all these CNN video of space shuttle launch is staged. Now, I am a muslim, have seen the same kind’o ‘teaching’ in madrasas, where I come from, Bangladesh, this is not a big problem since we are very moderate and our people love pious people and hate mullahs. FYI, for the last 16 years, all 3 prime minsiters are woman. Now, when this kind’o education is heavily funded by govt, like Afgan, that creats Talibans. Also, Most churches, temple, mosques and synagogs do charity work. This is charity, voluntary work, don’t expect govt to fund your work, which might be motivated by religious doctrine. Govt has lot of other stuff that need funding, such as EDUCATION that teaches you there is a moon.