Should the government fund religious charities?

[JDPriestly]

Madison thought that the 1st Amendment does not permit government funding for religious charities -- and knew since he wrote it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

. . . .

Because the bill vests and said incorporated church an also authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority which being altogether superfluous, if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_estab.htm

June 3, 1811

To the Baptist Churches in Neal's Creek and on Black Creek, North Carolina.

I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to tile Bill containing a grant of public land to the, Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House: Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded tile practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself. Among the various religious societies in our Country, none has been more vigilant or constant in maintaining that distinction than the Society of which you make a part, and it is an honorable proof of your sincerity and integrity, that you are as ready to do so in a case favoring the interest of your brethren as in other cases. It is but dust, at the same time, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, to remark that their application to the National legislature does not appear to have contemplated a grant of the land in question but on terms that might be equitable to the public as well as to themselves.

Accept my friendly respects. JAMES MADISON.

June 3d, 1811

http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_estab.htm

(Note that at the time of James Madison, the Baptists, a minority religion then, were strong supporters of the separation of church and state.)

[Adsos Letter]

1. NO!

make the government do its job in the social services department and hold them accountable for how they do the job.

Religious groups probably can do the job cheaper and more efficiently because many of them have institutions already in place to handle these things, but...once you lose Church/State seperation, you'll have the devil's own time getting it back...

[Liberal In Texas]

2. NO!

This "faith based" stuff is against the reason the US was founded in the first place. George Washington is probably spinning in that tomb at Mt. Vernon.

[Adsos Letter]

3. Damn Straight!

:thumbsup:

[NMMNG]

4. Absolutely not

Religious charities are not subject to the same licensing, regulations and oversights as secular charities. They also don't have to follow EOE standards and can discriminate against service recipients based on their religious principles. Accordingly they shouldn't get a penny of taxpayer money.

[Solly Mack]

5. Nope

[izquierdista]

6. Should religious charities fund the government?

Why, of course!

For far too long, they have scammed money on the pretext of "helping the less fortunate" only to give pennies to the poor while "overhead" takes up the rest. I say they need to pay taxes just like the rest.

[cgrindley]

7. Of course not

Why couldn't the founding fathers have written "Freedom FROM Religion"? Stupid fairy tales.

[Liberal In Texas]

8. Here's a question you might ask youself and your fundie friends.

With all the money (millions) poured into the "Faith Based" programs, what good has it done anyone?
-Making $ for the people that run it doesn't count.-

[tkmorris]

9. HELL NO!

[tkmorris]

10. HELL NO!

[TexasObserver]

11. Never! The deductibility is bad enough.

If you could end the deductibility of church contributions, you would end so much of the excess done under the flag of religion.

[melm00se]

12. they do,

indirectly, by granting tax deductions to charitable contributions.

Direct support? even if it is spread equally across all faiths, no...as faith targeted cash contributions, by individuals, is already $96+ billion (and that does not include contributed labor and time contributions).