Comments on: Religious Earmarks http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:16:32 +0000 By: Kullervo http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-24047 Kullervo Sun, 20 May 2007 19:38:42 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-24047 IIRC You can sue as an injured taxpayer for tax money spent on establishing religion, but not for more non-pecunary crap like donations of land. You'd have to show an actual particularized injury beyond the stigmatic or general indignance in order to have stabding to sue. IIRC You can sue as an injured taxpayer for tax money spent on establishing religion, but not for more non-pecunary crap like donations of land. You'd have to show an actual particularized injury beyond the stigmatic or general indignance in order to have stabding to sue.

]]> By: J http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-24031 J Sat, 19 May 2007 17:34:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-24031 <i>A church that becomes dependent on government money has little incentive to solicit the voluntary contributions that are its true livelihood, and if the spigot of public dollars ever shuts off, that luckless church may have forgotten how to sustain itself and could end up falling apart.</i> Oh geeze, what a <i>horrible</i> thing that would be, huh? Friends from Europe have told me that the number 1 thing churches should do if they want to collapse demographically and become a tiny, fringe element in culture is this: Become really, really tightly associated with the government. European secularism has EVERTHING to do with centuries (nay, millenia) of hand-in-glove involvement of church and state with each other. Who knows? In 500 years, the Middle East may be as secular as anything. A church that becomes dependent on government money has little incentive to solicit the voluntary contributions that are its true livelihood, and if the spigot of public dollars ever shuts off, that luckless church may have forgotten how to sustain itself and could end up falling apart.

Oh geeze, what a horrible thing that would be, huh?

Friends from Europe have told me that the number 1 thing churches should do if they want to collapse demographically and become a tiny, fringe element in culture is this: Become really, really tightly associated with the government. European secularism has EVERTHING to do with centuries (nay, millenia) of hand-in-glove involvement of church and state with each other.

Who knows? In 500 years, the Middle East may be as secular as anything.

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-24003 OMGF Fri, 18 May 2007 19:48:21 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-24003 It's not enough to simply hold them accountable for results, but they should be audited as well and held to strict accounting as Polly said. We know that certain church groups go to poor areas around the country to hand out food (good) and also to proselytize (bad). Without strict accounting, these groups could very easily use the governments dime to do their proselytizing, or at least use the gov's dime to do everything but the proselytizing. The problem with the latter, however, is that the gov. money is what enables them to carry out their religious purposes. It's not enough to simply hold them accountable for results, but they should be audited as well and held to strict accounting as Polly said. We know that certain church groups go to poor areas around the country to hand out food (good) and also to proselytize (bad). Without strict accounting, these groups could very easily use the governments dime to do their proselytizing, or at least use the gov's dime to do everything but the proselytizing. The problem with the latter, however, is that the gov. money is what enables them to carry out their religious purposes.

]]> By: lpetrich http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-24000 lpetrich Fri, 18 May 2007 19:23:04 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-24000 Seems like religious pork barrel to me. And a kind of pork barrel that the Religious Right absolutely <i>adores</i>. Seems like religious pork barrel to me.

And a kind of pork barrel that the Religious Right absolutely adores.

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-23997 Polly Fri, 18 May 2007 18:43:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-23997 I don't like government handouts to private organizations, either. But, if the government is going to hand money out to secular charities and programs, then it would be hypocrisy on par with discrimination, not to treat religious charities the same <i>to the extent that they are only serving the same secular purposes.</i> But, money is money. A few thousand for helping the poor means a few thousand freed up elsewhere to print religious tracks or but aritime or whatever. There has to be a strict budgeting and accounting to make sure that the moey isn't subsidizing religion from the backdoor. I don't like government handouts to private organizations, either. But, if the government is going to hand money out to secular charities and programs, then it would be hypocrisy on par with discrimination, not to treat religious charities the same to the extent that they are only serving the same secular purposes. But, money is money. A few thousand for helping the poor means a few thousand freed up elsewhere to print religious tracks or but aritime or whatever.
There has to be a strict budgeting and accounting to make sure that the moey isn't subsidizing religion from the backdoor.

]]> By: Vicki Baker http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-23994 Vicki Baker Fri, 18 May 2007 16:13:58 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-23994 This is a very important topic. I still don't really understand how Bush's faith based initiative program has changed the landscape of NGO funding. I know that before, church groups could apply for grants subject to the same rules as secular groups. I think that now they are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion both in hiring practices and who they serve. (I'm pretty sure about hiring, less sure about clients - I guess it depends on what the grant is for) That seems blatantly unconstitutional. Also, it has never seemed fair that Churches don't have to pay into Social Security. I remember when I worked for an organization that helped immigrants and refufees, being quite shocked that a gentleman who had been laid off from his job as a church caretaker was not eligible for unemployment because the church did not pay the social security tax. This is a very important topic. I still don't really understand how Bush's faith based initiative program has changed the landscape of NGO funding. I know that before, church groups could apply for grants subject to the same rules as secular groups. I think that now they are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion both in hiring practices and who they serve. (I'm pretty sure about hiring, less sure about clients - I guess it depends on what the grant is for) That seems blatantly unconstitutional. Also, it has never seemed fair that Churches don't have to pay into Social Security. I remember when I worked for an organization that helped immigrants and refufees, being quite shocked that a gentleman who had been laid off from his job as a church caretaker was not eligible for unemployment because the church did not pay the social security tax.

]]> By: Darren http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-23993 Darren Fri, 18 May 2007 15:09:36 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/religious-earmarks.html#comment-23993 I disagree somewhat with your last paragraph, at least to the extent that government patronage is acceptable, or at least overlooked. I fail to see why churches cannot be treated as a private enterprise in all respects, as you mentioned in "Tax the Churches". Let them live or die on their own merits; if they want to undertake a social project, raise the funds themselves. There is no good reason for a government to hand money to a church. I disagree somewhat with your last paragraph, at least to the extent that government patronage is acceptable, or at least overlooked. I fail to see why churches cannot be treated as a private enterprise in all respects, as you mentioned in "Tax the Churches". Let them live or die on their own merits; if they want to undertake a social project, raise the funds themselves. There is no good reason for a government to hand money to a church.

]]>