# Faith Based Charities



## Nightingale (Jan 8, 2004)

Should faith based charities receive government money?


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 8, 2004)

I voted only charities of my faith, because there is never any corruption in the Catholic Church, so these are the only charities that can be trusted.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I voted only charities of my faith, because there is never any corruption in the Catholic Church, so these are the only charities that can be trusted. *



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?


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 8, 2004)

boredom.


and you just can't seem to spell my username right, can ya?


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 8, 2004)

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.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *boredom.
> 
> 
> and you just can't seem to spell my username right, can ya? *



I guess not.....


----------



## TonyM. (Jan 9, 2004)

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.


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 9, 2004)

I don't think private schools should receive government funds.  They're private businesses and should be treated accordingly.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 9, 2004)

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.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 9, 2004)

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?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 9, 2004)

They make it no secret.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 18, 2004)

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?


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 22, 2004)

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.


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 22, 2004)

Bill Gates isn't being subsidized by tax dollars.  Therein lies the difference.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 22, 2004)

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.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 22, 2004)

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


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 22, 2004)

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.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2004)

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...


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 23, 2004)

Could be worse, could be tax dollars for abortion.

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=1499


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 23, 2004)

I'm pro-choice... BUT abortion is an elective procedure. You choose to have it, you pay for it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 23, 2004)

We pay for in vitro fertilization--why not that? We pay for chiropractic services--why not that? We pay for the health consequences of people's "lifestyle," choices (obesity, stress, diet) all the time--why not that? 

And this thread is about demanding that people like me pay for advertisements for other people's religious beliefs and institutions--so...?

One of the things I notice with all the yahooing about faith-based charities is that a) funny, it never seems to be a matter of getting funds to some Catholic school that has money troubles keeping going in inner cities; b) funny, it always seems to be a charity from some constituency that Dubya wants to placate that we hear about; c) funny, it never seems to be, say, an Islamic charity that we're going to give money to (though if memory serves, Dubya mentioned one on TV), and d) funny, when an OC minister tried to run a soup kitchen and job counseling service out of the basement of his church, his good faith-based neighbors ran the whole thing right out of town. 

I guess faith-based charities are great as long as they serve to keep them po' folks far, far away...


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 23, 2004)

I've never heard about a government program for IVF... most insurance companies won't even cover it!

Chiropractic work can have a legitimate health benefit.  Makes sense for insurance companies to cover stuff like that.  Ditto for obesity/stress stuff, but it makes MORE sense here to cover personal trainers and nutritionists and psychologists so the problem doesn't become a surgical one to begin with.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 23, 2004)

> We pay for in vitro fertilization--why not that? We pay for chiropractic services--why not that? We pay for the health consequences of people's "lifestyle," choices (obesity, stress, diet) all the time--why not that?



We are talking about government not insurance. I have never heard of Government paying for any of those things.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 24, 2004)

In the first place, the insurance companies that DO pay something for IVF (Kaiser does in California; BC does not) pass those costs along to everybody. In the second, government programs such as Medicaid often end up spending a great deal on the costs of long-term bad choices--like stuffing your face and never getting any exercise. In the third, a) ALL hospitals get federal and state aid in some form or another--they have to, and b) there are social costs that we all pay.  

For example, because money gets thrown into stuff like stomach stapling, there is less of the pie available for things like early childhood vaccination programs.

Thanks.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *In the first place, the insurance companies that DO pay something for IVF (Kaiser does in California; BC does not) pass those costs along to everybody. In the second, government programs such as Medicaid often end up spending a great deal on the costs of long-term bad choices--like stuffing your face and never getting any exercise. In the third, a) ALL hospitals get federal and state aid in some form or another--they have to, and b) there are social costs that we all pay.
> 
> For example, because money gets thrown into stuff like stomach stapling, there is less of the pie available for things like early childhood vaccination programs.
> ...



Robert,

I have known 5 people to have some form of stomache (* Barritric (Spelling) *) surgery. Four of them did this and have gone on to become actice athelets, running 10K and even marathons, getting out and exercising, where they could not even do this before the surgery. In the fifth case she is in shape, not an athelet and is much older, yet is trying to set an better example for her teenage son. So that people can learn and be healthier. All of these people had to go through psych evaluations and also treatment programs that were documented and have a BMI of at least 33 or 35 or higher to be considered. Many were facing other long term issues such as heart and or kidney and diabetes issues. Yes, stuffing food into our mouths is an issue, yet in the cases I have seen personally, the people involved were doing it to become healthier for themselves and or their family. This avoid other health costs down the road.

I am 6'3" and 284 with 19.4 % body fat. I am working on lowering both the body fat and the weight. Why, because as I get older it is harder to maintain. My Doctor, harps on me about this, why because he knows I care and will listen. Other patients will not. 

Oh well, good discussion so far.
:asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 25, 2004)

Sorry...I am still not seeing it.



> For example, because money gets thrown into stuff like stomach stapling, there is less of the pie available for things like early childhood vaccination programs.



So, someone dipping into there own pocket or even the insurance compaines pocket to get a stomach stapling. How does this translate to less money for childhood vaccination programs by the GOVERNMENT. 

Are you seeing this as one whole pie: our U.S. economy? I am looking at it as 3 seperate pies: 1. personal wealth, 2. insurance, 3. government. And...I think this thread is refering to government (faith based charities).


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2004)

Because at some level, every single aspect of what we laughingly call our medical system is government-financed, from medical school education through drug procurement to hospital and community clinic finance. Oh yeah, and workers' disability insurance is typically financed through state and federal programs.

As for faith-based charities---the whole issue has very little to do with delivering help or medical care. It has to do with Dubya and his cronies seeking to play, simultaneously, to African-American constituencies, to Christian fundamentalists, and to one or two other religious groups. 

Much of this stuff, too, could far better be dealt with through some form of national health insurance program and some form of social justice--the need for "faith-based," clinics in this country comes from our basing access to medical care entirely on our fantasies of free-market capitalism, and many of the problems abroad are the consequence of a) five centuries of colonialism, b) our playing grabass in the Third World first with Europe and then with the Russians and now with whoknowswho for about two centuries, c) our utter, insane refusal to do anything rational about population pressure (scope out Dubya's pulling the plug on UN programs!). (Please note that I wrote, "many." People like Idi Amin certainly proved that the Third World has the talent and the resources to create much of its own misery.)

Hence, we're running around patching this bit ad that bit together. 

However, if I thought that faith-based charities were something more than a flimsy cover for the ideological demands of the likes of Pat Robertson, I'd probably say, wotthehell, support 'em. Hell, pieces of my taxes go to all sorts of crazy crap I dislike--the B-2 bomber, the new Star Wars, Halliburton, loonbox drug enforcement...


----------

