Separation of Church and State

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, mrmitchell, and like Plato said they haven't. There is no state sponsored church.

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with this. Letting church charities compete for federal grants? So? How this establishes a religion is beyond me .

[Sprayber]

Those damned founding fathers never considered arm chair interpertations did they.

[Zulu Elephant]

Cant see the problem so long as they aren't evil recruiting soup kitchens.

If its found out that they're preaching or giving away free crucifixes with their soup then send the feds in to occupy their churches and turn them into mini malls to repay the money.

[mrmitchell]

It's a federal sponsorship of a church. I don't see what is hard to grasp.

And with all the churches out there, you can bet an large amount will be recruiting with the money. But enforcing the no-recruiting just adds more load on the government as it is--now they've got to make sure churches are spending money right too. (And I thought you guys liked smaller government )

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a federal sponsorship of a church.

How is it federal sponsorship of a church when the money is going to be given to many churches based on the chartible works they do? The government isn't saying we like this church better than your church, it is saying that it needs more money for its charitble work.

[Elok]

Originally posted by St Leo
Hurt? Religious people aren't prevented from working in a non-religious charity. If they just want to help people as an advertisement for their brand of the One True Way, they can do it on their own money. o_0

That strikes me as a bit oversimplified. Churches might have a number of reasons for forming their own charities that don't necessarily have to do with getting converts.

For one thing, they might like some control over the direction of the money, so that it doesn't go towards forms of aid they morally oppose, e.g. they might wish to sponsor crisis pregnancy centers in lieu of abortion clinics.

Or they might have specific goals not strictly compatible with other charities; International Orthodox Christian Charities prefers to help the poor and downtrodden in predominantly Orthodox countries in addition to possibly more needy people outside the fold. They do have a project in Mexico, and several in Africa, but a large chunk of it goes to salvaging Eastern European countries ruined by war or a few decades of communist mismanagement. It isn't favoritism so much as a recognition of the fact that families are responsible for protecting their own children first.

Or it may be a matter of simplified administration. Or something else entirely. There's no point in assuming a grim ulterior motive on the part of people you disagree with (yeah, the pot's probably speaking to the kettle here). Anyway, the Salvation Army is a religious charity; would you oppose federal aid for them?

[mrmitchell]

How is it federal sponsorship of a church when the money is going to be given to many churches based on the chartible works they do? The government isn't saying we like this church better than your church, it is saying that it needs more money for its charitble work.

You're giving more money to one group than another. How is that not favoritism? And while I'm on the subject, surely there's some crackpot (religious) group out there who supports NAMBLA and everything else you don't like. Would you want them getting money? No, but they're going to have to get it or else they can sue the government for discrimination.

For one thing, they might like some control over the direction of the money, so that it doesn't go towards forms of aid they morally oppose, e.g. they might wish to sponsor crisis pregnancy centers in lieu of abortion clinics.

You see? Opposed to it for moral reasons. So if the government gives them money then they're opposed to it for moral reasons too, or they support an organisation that is opposed to it for moral reasons (same thing as far as gov. is concerned really). But the government isn't supposed to dip its hands in moral affairs. *sigh* Back to my example earlier, the Church of NAMBLA wants to hold a bake sale for axe murderers because they're morally opposed to holding a bake sale for [good cause]. The government is again trapped into the situation where they've got to give them money or they can be sued for religious discrimination...

[Dr Strangelove]

One feature of the law will allow religious chairities to receive forfeited property with the only stipulation being that the property is to not be used for religious purposes for five years. This could be quite a feather in somebody's cap.

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd like to see some proof that any religious organization supports NAMBLA.

[mrmitchell]

Well, Dr Strangelove, I'm not sure about NAMBLA but there's of course ones that support things Elok + Imran + etc disagree with. But money still has to go to those ones correct?

I was using the Church of NAMBLA example because it might very well happen and the longer the law stays in place the more likely someone will cook the idea up and use it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're giving more money to one group than another. How is that not favoritism? And while I'm on the subject, surely there's some crackpot (religious) group out there who supports NAMBLA and everything else you don't like. Would you want them getting money? No, but they're going to have to get it or else they can sue the government for discrimination.

I see you've started to go off the deep end. The government discriminates on many issues on which group to give money to. That doesn't mean they 'favor' one group over the other, they simply think one group needs the money more. The government isn't saying that this artist that gets money is backed by the US, but rather they made the best showing for it (and this applies especially to artists under the NEA... some of the people that get the money are definetly not favored by the government).

There is no religious discrimination whatsoever here.

[mrmitchell]

But what if the Church of NAMBLA does exactly that and makes the best showing (for axe murderers)? And it still gives them an excuse to sue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But what if the Church of NAMBLA does exactly that and makes the best showing (for axe murderers)? And it still gives them an excuse to sue.

You can always sue, you can't always win. And they wouldn't win.

If the 'Church of NAMBLA' (they don't need to be a church to apply for charity work) makes the best showing for charity then they'd probably get some money. However, they don't. Furthermore, if you logic was correct, then the 'Church of NAMBLA' would have sued on the basis that they don't have tax-exempt church status.

The money would go to groups like the Red Cross, and inner city churches that help the poor.

[Evil Knevil]

What is Nambla?

[Az]

Evil Knevil is about to find out something very unpleasant.