To clarify, this isn't about teaching the subject of religion/philosophy within secular school programs (I think that's a good thing, for a few reasons). This is about private religious schools (Christian, Catholic, Muslim, etc) receiving full or partial funding out of government coffers. Is this the norm in your country? Should they be eligible, or is this a conflict of separation between church and state? If so, are there movements to lobby against this?
I was sent to a private Christian high school. This is their mission statement:
"To provide a community under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, where students receive a quality education for the whole person, taught from a Biblical perspective, enabling them to develop a Biblical worldview, and become responsible, growing disciples of Jesus Christ, who glorify God through a life of service to Him and others."
Under this system, we were not taught about evolution. That was something I had to research on my own time, and god help you (heh) if you brought it up in class. Sexual education was limited to STIs and abstinence - no discussion of contraception or "safe sex". We were required to attend weekly chapel services. Required to attend Bible Studies class. Not allowed to wear clothing with slogans that promote worldviews in opposition to "Biblical values".
Hope that gives anyone who was unsure about the differences in teaching between religious and secular school systems a better understanding.
In my opinion, this is a very obvious transgression against church/state separation - so why is being allowed to continue?
I don't know why it's allowed to continue, but I am almost certain that is why most conservatives are in favor of offering private school vouchers - so that in effect the government is funding religious schools. I'm not a fan. Teach your quackery on your own dime, pleaseandthankyou.
In the Netherlands all schools receive money from the government, if they match the government's educational criteria. Since 1920 all public and private schools are funded equally.
Quote from: Tom62 on February 07, 2012, 05:44:41 AM
In the Netherlands all schools receive money from the government, if they match the government's educational criteria. Since 1920 all public and private schools are funded equally.
I first read about that in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Infidel". It was quite eye-opening to me.
Anyway, no, I am most certainly not in favor of this. If they want to have fully private schools with no government support, then I suppose there's nothing we can do about it, but government has no place there. And yes, that is why the voucher systems are always pushed; the vast majority of the kids who get vouchers go to religious private schools
Quote from: Tom62 on February 07, 2012, 05:44:41 AM
In the Netherlands all schools receive money from the government, if they match the government's educational criteria. Since 1920 all public and private schools are funded equally.
I would think that would be a violation of the first amendment in the US.
Quote from: Ali on February 07, 2012, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Tom62 on February 07, 2012, 05:44:41 AM
In the Netherlands all schools receive money from the government, if they match the government's educational criteria. Since 1920 all public and private schools are funded equally.
I would think that would be a violation of the first amendment in the US.
Aye, but there are many equal violations of the first amendment in the US. Churches being tax exempt is one.
I'm not happy about it either, although I must admit that the catholic schools in the Netherlands appear (on average) to be better than the public schools. The worst rated schools are the muslim ones.
In the US there are public schools, charter schools and private schools. Public and charters are fully and partially funded (respectively) by the government and must meet all the standards of a public school. Private schools receive no funding from the government and can be religious in nature as long as they meet state education standards.
So, I don't know how you managed to attend a religious private school that was government funded.
Hmm... I wonder how long it would take for me to get expelled from one of them religious schools...
I'd probably get slapped with a ten miles restraining order too.
*Picturing Asmo impregnating one of the nuns at Catholic school*
Quote from: Whitney on February 07, 2012, 09:12:44 PM
In the US there are public schools, charter schools and private schools. Public and charters are fully and partially funded (respectively) by the government and must meet all the standards of a public school. Private schools receive no funding from the government and can be religious in nature as long as they meet state education standards.
So, I don't know how you managed to attend a religious private school that was government funded.
I'm in Canadia. ;)
Not all private religious schools in the country *are* government funded, but in my province, they are eligible to receive funding up to 50% of operating costs.
Quote from: Ali on February 08, 2012, 01:36:57 AM
*Picturing Asmo impregnating one of the nuns at Catholic school*
...On the principal's desk.
*Picturing His offspring coming out and devouring the mother* :D
Quote from: Whitney on February 07, 2012, 09:12:44 PM
In the US there are public schools, charter schools and private schools. Public and charters are fully and partially funded (respectively) by the government and must meet all the standards of a public school. Private schools receive no funding from the government and can be religious in nature as long as they meet state education standards.
So, I don't know how you managed to attend a religious private school that was government funded.
I don't think that is entirely true. Private schools, including Catholic, can receive government money if they meet certain requirements. I believe for some of the funding they simply have meet certain curriculum requirements. Most private schools are currently partially funded by tax dollars I believe, including the religious ones.
Also, some state and local governments have rerouted tax dollars to religious schools in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_school#United_States
By definition a private school in the US is not government funded. If a US private school is religious and taking in government money then it needs to be challenged on constitutional grounds as it would violate the establishment clause. If it is not religious and is taking in government money then it's a charter school or a weird hybrid of private/charter that I've never seen actually done in practice.
Quote from: Whitney on February 08, 2012, 08:09:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_school#United_States
By definition a private school in the US is not government funded. If a US private school is religious and taking in government money then it needs to be challenged on constitutional grounds as it would violate the establishment clause. If it is not religious and is taking in government money then it's a charter school or a weird hybrid of private/charter that I've never seen actually done in practice.
I'm not positive, I'm simply suspecting the Catholic school I went to received tax payer money. I can't say for certain, and I would agree it should be challenged if they do. It's possible it is only charter schools, but I suspected my Catholic high school received funding from the state due to some practices they implemented while I was there. I'm going to do a bit of my own research in a few days to see if I see anything that supports this.
I have read and heard conflicting things in the past, so I'm now unable to remember which information was likely valid and which wasn't.
Religions should not receive government funding to further promulgate their beliefs. Similarly, the government should not receive tax money from religions. The more you tie the two entities together, the worse it is for both in the long run.
Here in the UK, my children attend a church of England school, part government funded, part church funded. The school reserves the right to choose half of its entrants from local churches (which included my children). The other half are chosen through the normal State proximity criteria. It is considered as such a good school academically and oversubscribed that, living just one mile away, we would not have got in. They DO teach evolution. There are many other (mild) religions that attend the school through the State criteria. It is very inclusive and non judgmental. They are offered, rather than forced Christianity.
There are also other religious schools in the borough which operate in a similar way. So, the emphasis is on choice. But it is obvious that it is the religious schools that offer the best chances of superior academic education. This says much about wholly State funded (and managed) establishments.
As there IS a choice I do not see a problem with the partial State funding of these schools - indeed the aggregate education is elevated as a result. But it does cast a shadow over state funded secular schools. You cant blame the religious schools for doing their best.
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 06, 2012, 07:47:36 PM
To clarify, this isn't about teaching the subject of religion/philosophy within secular school programs (I think that's a good thing, for a few reasons). This is about private religious schools (Christian, Catholic, Muslim, etc) receiving full or partial funding out of government coffers. Is this the norm in your country? Should they be eligible, or is this a conflict of separation between church and state? If so, are there movements to lobby against this?
I was sent to a private Christian high school. This is their mission statement:
"To provide a community under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, where students receive a quality education for the whole person, taught from a Biblical perspective, enabling them to develop a Biblical worldview, and become responsible, growing disciples of Jesus Christ, who glorify God through a life of service to Him and others."
Under this system, we were not taught about evolution. That was something I had to research on my own time, and god help you (heh) if you brought it up in class. Sexual education was limited to STIs and abstinence - no discussion of contraception or "safe sex". We were required to attend weekly chapel services. Required to attend Bible Studies class. Not allowed to wear clothing with slogans that promote worldviews in opposition to "Biblical values".
Hope that gives anyone who was unsure about the differences in teaching between religious and secular school systems a better understanding.
In my opinion, this is a very obvious transgression against church/state separation - so why is being allowed to continue?
I'm not sure what country you're from. But in the US funding of religious schools is generally illegal. There are some exceptions. For example the state can provide bus services to students who attend religious schools.
Quote from: Will37 on February 28, 2012, 07:16:43 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 06, 2012, 07:47:36 PM
To clarify, this isn't about teaching the subject of religion/philosophy within secular school programs (I think that's a good thing, for a few reasons). This is about private religious schools (Christian, Catholic, Muslim, etc) receiving full or partial funding out of government coffers. Is this the norm in your country? Should they be eligible, or is this a conflict of separation between church and state? If so, are there movements to lobby against this?
I was sent to a private Christian high school. This is their mission statement:
"To provide a community under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, where students receive a quality education for the whole person, taught from a Biblical perspective, enabling them to develop a Biblical worldview, and become responsible, growing disciples of Jesus Christ, who glorify God through a life of service to Him and others."
Under this system, we were not taught about evolution. That was something I had to research on my own time, and god help you (heh) if you brought it up in class. Sexual education was limited to STIs and abstinence - no discussion of contraception or "safe sex". We were required to attend weekly chapel services. Required to attend Bible Studies class. Not allowed to wear clothing with slogans that promote worldviews in opposition to "Biblical values".
Hope that gives anyone who was unsure about the differences in teaching between religious and secular school systems a better understanding.
In my opinion, this is a very obvious transgression against church/state separation - so why is being allowed to continue?
I'm not sure what country you're from. But in the US funding of religious schools is generally illegal. There are some exceptions. For example the state can provide bus services to students who attend religious schools.
What about those voucher programs that cover tuition? How is that
not government funding of religious education?
Quote from: Firebird on March 02, 2012, 11:05:48 PM
Quote from: Will37 on February 28, 2012, 07:16:43 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 06, 2012, 07:47:36 PM
To clarify, this isn't about teaching the subject of religion/philosophy within secular school programs (I think that's a good thing, for a few reasons). This is about private religious schools (Christian, Catholic, Muslim, etc) receiving full or partial funding out of government coffers. Is this the norm in your country? Should they be eligible, or is this a conflict of separation between church and state? If so, are there movements to lobby against this?
I was sent to a private Christian high school. This is their mission statement:
"To provide a community under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, where students receive a quality education for the whole person, taught from a Biblical perspective, enabling them to develop a Biblical worldview, and become responsible, growing disciples of Jesus Christ, who glorify God through a life of service to Him and others."
Under this system, we were not taught about evolution. That was something I had to research on my own time, and god help you (heh) if you brought it up in class. Sexual education was limited to STIs and abstinence - no discussion of contraception or "safe sex". We were required to attend weekly chapel services. Required to attend Bible Studies class. Not allowed to wear clothing with slogans that promote worldviews in opposition to "Biblical values".
Hope that gives anyone who was unsure about the differences in teaching between religious and secular school systems a better understanding.
In my opinion, this is a very obvious transgression against church/state separation - so why is being allowed to continue?
I'm not sure what country you're from. But in the US funding of religious schools is generally illegal. There are some exceptions. For example the state can provide bus services to students who attend religious schools.
What about those voucher programs that cover tuition? How is that not government funding of religious education?
It's a sidestep. The government isn't technically funding the school. It's providing a voucher to parents, who are free to use the voucher at a religious school. Makes my blood boil. With all its faults, I believe in the public education system. It's what's made the U.S. what it is today, but it's slowly being chipped away at by voucher programs and public charter schools. The decent charter schools are very much outnumbered by the abysmal ones, and at least in Texas, the charter schools don't have to follow the same rules as regular public schools.
Quote from: Firebird on March 02, 2012, 11:05:48 PM
Quote from: Will37 on February 28, 2012, 07:16:43 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 06, 2012, 07:47:36 PM
To clarify, this isn't about teaching the subject of religion/philosophy within secular school programs (I think that's a good thing, for a few reasons). This is about private religious schools (Christian, Catholic, Muslim, etc) receiving full or partial funding out of government coffers. Is this the norm in your country? Should they be eligible, or is this a conflict of separation between church and state? If so, are there movements to lobby against this?
I was sent to a private Christian high school. This is their mission statement:
"To provide a community under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, where students receive a quality education for the whole person, taught from a Biblical perspective, enabling them to develop a Biblical worldview, and become responsible, growing disciples of Jesus Christ, who glorify God through a life of service to Him and others."
Under this system, we were not taught about evolution. That was something I had to research on my own time, and god help you (heh) if you brought it up in class. Sexual education was limited to STIs and abstinence - no discussion of contraception or "safe sex". We were required to attend weekly chapel services. Required to attend Bible Studies class. Not allowed to wear clothing with slogans that promote worldviews in opposition to "Biblical values".
Hope that gives anyone who was unsure about the differences in teaching between religious and secular school systems a better understanding.
In my opinion, this is a very obvious transgression against church/state separation - so why is being allowed to continue?
I'm not sure what country you're from. But in the US funding of religious schools is generally illegal. There are some exceptions. For example the state can provide bus services to students who attend religious schools.
What about those voucher programs that cover tuition? How is that not government funding of religious education?
I'm 90% positive that a voucher just for religious schools would be illegal. But as I recall so long as the money goes to the students or their families and those units are the ones using those funds to purchase a religious education then it's fine. That is a hair splitting case. But we have a more conservative court. It is arguable, though. I mean as I recall from the case law it was well argued.
Quote from: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 12:55:11 AM
Similarly, the government should not receive tax money from religions.
Disagree with this. What makes a belief in god more special than a belief in a sports team?
If we pay money to watch a sports match, that is a taxed exchange of goods and services, same thing for people paying to attend a church.
If you think of tithing as a charity, then church needs to abide by the rules of charity, which they currently don't.
The church sells a service, people pay for the service, as an organisation operating within our society, this money exchange ought to be taxed.
Quote from: Stevil on March 03, 2012, 08:06:27 AM
Quote from: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 12:55:11 AM
Similarly, the government should not receive tax money from religions.
Disagree with this. What makes a belief in god more special than a belief in a sports team?
If we pay money to watch a sports match, that is a taxed exchange of goods and services, same thing for people paying to attend a church.
If you think of tithing as a charity, then church needs to abide by the rules of charity, which they currently don't.
The church sells a service, people pay for the service, as an organisation operating within our society, this money exchange ought to be taxed.
The difference is that there is no constitutional wall separating the government from a sports team or guaranteeing the right of sport. I think the religious would be rightfully offended if they discovered that secularists really only wanted the wall to be impermeable in one direction. A state government can tax a sports team but they can also fund a sports team. The state is constitutionally prohibited from funding or supporting a Church. Why should they get to tax it? Moreover, we both know that the power to tax is the power to destroy. I don't trust local government to not erect religious taxes designed to discriminate against Islam or other similarly unpopular religions. Taxation weakens the wall and really would be unfair.
Quote from: Will37 on March 03, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
Quote from: Stevil on March 03, 2012, 08:06:27 AM
Quote from: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 12:55:11 AM
Similarly, the government should not receive tax money from religions.
Disagree with this. What makes a belief in god more special than a belief in a sports team?
If we pay money to watch a sports match, that is a taxed exchange of goods and services, same thing for people paying to attend a church.
If you think of tithing as a charity, then church needs to abide by the rules of charity, which they currently don't.
The church sells a service, people pay for the service, as an organisation operating within our society, this money exchange ought to be taxed.
The difference is that there is no constitutional wall separating the government from a sports team or guaranteeing the right of sport. I think the religious would be rightfully offended if they discovered that secularists really only wanted the wall to be impermeable in one direction. A state government can tax a sports team but they can also fund a sports team. The state is constitutionally prohibited from funding or supporting a Church. Why should they get to tax it? Moreover, we both know that the power to tax is the power to destroy. I don't trust local government to not erect religious taxes designed to discriminate against Islam or other similarly unpopular religions. Taxation weakens the wall and really would be unfair.
I agree with this. Also, the intent of religion is to both perfect oneself and to find some meaning in existence. Whether Liberal Quaker or Fundamentalist Baptist, Unitarian or Scientologist, Hindu or Muslim, I'm leery of the government having any involvement whatsoever in that process, whether the answers found are accurate or not.
Quote from: Will37 on March 03, 2012, 06:07:07 AM
I'm 90% positive that a voucher just for religious schools would be illegal. But as I recall so long as the money goes to the students or their families and those units are the ones using those funds to purchase a religious education then it's fine. That is a hair splitting case. But we have a more conservative court. It is arguable, though. I mean as I recall from the case law it was well argued.
Yes, but most of the vouchers that are given out now go to religious schools, even if the parents have a choice. I don't think that money should ever go to a religious school by law. I also don't like voucher programs in general because of how they take away from public schools.
Quote from: Will37 on March 03, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
The difference is that there is no constitutional wall separating the government from a sports team or guaranteeing the right of sport. I think the religious would be rightfully offended if they discovered that secularists really only wanted the wall to be impermeable in one direction. A state government can tax a sports team but they can also fund a sports team. The state is constitutionally prohibited from funding or supporting a Church. Why should they get to tax it? Moreover, we both know that the power to tax is the power to destroy. I don't trust local government to not erect religious taxes designed to discriminate against Islam or other similarly unpopular religions. Taxation weakens the wall and really would be unfair.
Yes, but churches also abuse their position as a supposed non-profit with no political proselytization. Churches are not supposed to advocate for political candidates from the pulpit, yet they do it all the time. Those who do should be taxed, as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I'm not opposed to taxing all churches as I don't feel they serve a real societal function, but I know that would never happen anytime soon.
Quote from: statichaos on March 03, 2012, 08:12:20 PM
Also, the intent of religion is to both perfect oneself and to find some meaning in existence.
The intent of many religious organisations is to make money. Just look at how wealthy the Catholic church is.
There are many tv evangalists, or proclaimed healers e.g. Benny Hinn focused on getting wealthy.
It is likely the followers are wanting to perfect themselves in their obedience towards a religion and hence their perceived path to eternal life, but they aren't the ones making the money. They are the consumers. They are being taken to the cleaners while their fat cat spiritual guides are laughing on their way to the bank.
Quote from: Firebird on March 05, 2012, 03:52:55 AM
Yes, but most of the vouchers that are given out now go to religious schools, even if the parents have a choice. I don't think that money should ever go to a religious school by law. I also don't like voucher programs in general because of how they take away from public schools.
Ok. So Church's should be taxed but when parents get a tax payer funded voucher they should be legally prohibited from using that voucher to purchase an education from that Church's school? Why not? If you make religious institutions just like any other then you can't get annoyed when the state treats them like a normal institution in the positive senses as well or when they stand to take advantage of the rights that normal associations have that they are currently denied. Do you really want the Catholic Church making Super PAC donations?
If you open this door it's not just going to go one way. You're not going to be able to stop the entanglement.
QuoteYes, but churches also abuse their position as a supposed non-profit with no political proselytization. Churches are not supposed to advocate for political candidates from the pulpit, yet they do it all the time. Those who do should be taxed, as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I'm not opposed to taxing all churches as I don't feel they serve a real societal function, but I know that would never happen anytime soon.
Well, again, you want to have a 'heads I win and tails you lose' sort of arrangement that really is patently unfair to those Americans who are religious. You want to remove the wall separating the Church from the state and form a new relationship whereby the state is allowed to hurt religion but not help it. How is that just? I don't want to help religion.
Church's do lose their tax exempt status if they directly advocate for a candidate or party. If you know of an instance where it has happened and they haven't been caught then report it.
Quote from: Will37 on March 03, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
The difference is that there is no constitutional wall separating the government from a sports team or guaranteeing the right of sport. I think the religious would be rightfully offended if they discovered that secularists really only wanted the wall to be impermeable in one direction. A state government can tax a sports team but they can also fund a sports team. The state is constitutionally prohibited from funding or supporting a Church. Why should they get to tax it? Moreover, we both know that the power to tax is the power to destroy. I don't trust local government to not erect religious taxes designed to discriminate against Islam or other similarly unpopular religions. Taxation weakens the wall and really would be unfair.
Religion is a business though. If the government has a right to tax business, I see no reason that "right" should not be extended to religion. I'm personally in support of the abolition of Church/State separation. I doubt much would change as a result of it, but I would enjoy watching the outrage from the right.
Also, if the state adopted a preferred religion, it would do more for anarchy than anything Tom Woods could do. Regardless, I would enjoy the outrage and problems caused by the state adopting or taxing certain religions.
Quote from: Stevil on March 05, 2012, 10:30:40 AM
Quote from: statichaos on March 03, 2012, 08:12:20 PM
Also, the intent of religion is to both perfect oneself and to find some meaning in existence.
The intent of many religious organisations is to make money. Just look at how wealthy the Catholic church is.
There are many tv evangalists, or proclaimed healers e.g. Benny Hinn focused on getting wealthy.
It is likely the followers are wanting to perfect themselves in their obedience towards a religion and hence their perceived path to eternal life, but they aren't the ones making the money. They are the consumers. They are being taken to the cleaners while their fat cat spiritual guides are laughing on their way to the bank.
Yes, there are religions whose organizers care about little other than how much they can pull in, I agree. However, that does not mean that religious organizations should be taxed any more than it means that they should receive funds from the government.
Quote from: statichaos on March 05, 2012, 10:24:55 PM
Yes, there are religions whose organizers care about little other than how much they can pull in, I agree. However, that does not mean that religious organizations should be taxed any more than it means that they should receive funds from the government.
So if the American government are giving funding to religious based organizations such as charities (which they do) Is that crossing the boundary between separation of church and state? That to me seems to be a violation but not a bad one. As the American government is giving to religious based organizations with good intentions would it not be acceptable to tax those churches that are taking advantage of their congregations, or those that give more money to pastors rather than helping the local communities or charity.
Quote
So if the American government are giving funding to religious based organizations such as charities (which they do) Is that crossing the boundary between separation of church and state?
Yes, it is a violation. Which charity or charities are you referring to?
QuoteThat to me seems to be a violation but not a bad one. As the American government is giving to religious based organizations with good intentions would it not be acceptable to tax those churches that are taking advantage of their congregations, or those that give more money to pastors rather than helping the local communities or charity.
I think that both are wrong, so the argument doesn't apply to my beliefs. Government should not fund religious charities, schools, or other organizations. Similarly, as entities disallowed from receiving public benefits or funds, churches should not be obligated to pay into the system.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 05, 2012, 10:02:34 PM
Quote from: Will37 on March 03, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
The difference is that there is no constitutional wall separating the government from a sports team or guaranteeing the right of sport. I think the religious would be rightfully offended if they discovered that secularists really only wanted the wall to be impermeable in one direction. A state government can tax a sports team but they can also fund a sports team. The state is constitutionally prohibited from funding or supporting a Church. Why should they get to tax it? Moreover, we both know that the power to tax is the power to destroy. I don't trust local government to not erect religious taxes designed to discriminate against Islam or other similarly unpopular religions. Taxation weakens the wall and really would be unfair.
Religion is a business though. If the government has a right to tax business, I see no reason that "right" should not be extended to religion. I'm personally in support of the abolition of Church/State separation. I doubt much would change as a result of it, but I would enjoy watching the outrage from the right.
Also, if the state adopted a preferred religion, it would do more for anarchy than anything Tom Woods could do. Regardless, I would enjoy the outrage and problems caused by the state adopting or taxing certain religions.
I really have nothing to say about the ideological components of your argument one way or the other (no offense, I'm just not an anarchist so have no desire to delve into the utility of religion in bringing about anarchy). But the first two sentences represent, in my opinion, deeply flawed reasoning. You're doing the same thing that the other guy is doing in presenting a 'heads I win but tails you lose' proposition to religion. Maybe you believe that religion is essentially a business venture but it does not currently enjoy the same privileges as business.
At this current stage in American politics tearing down that law will only help religion. Do you really think that any major politician will be extending tax on mainstream Christian Church's? The result will be very low taxes with subsidies and religion empowered to much more forcefully enter the religious arena.
Quote from: statichaos on March 06, 2012, 12:32:13 AM
Yes, it is a violation. Which charity or charities are you referring to?
Here is a bit of general information on it White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships).
Quote from: Crow on March 06, 2012, 01:43:22 AM
Quote from: statichaos on March 06, 2012, 12:32:13 AM
Yes, it is a violation. Which charity or charities are you referring to?
Here is a bit of general information on it White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships).
Oh, yes, that. I'm not in favor of that office, or of any government money going towards religious programs, charitable or not. I suppose that it's not so bad if there's no religious test or other requirement, and if there's no proselytizing going on, but having been on the receiving end of some charity, I can say that secular organizations tend to be much better at that sort of thing. St. Vincent de Paul is a bit of an exception, but despite the Catholic name and the Catholic founder of the mission in San Diego, they tend to stay far away from any religious stuff.
Quote from: Will37 on March 05, 2012, 05:24:31 PM
Church's do lose their tax exempt status if they directly advocate for a candidate or party. If you know of an instance where it has happened and they haven't been caught then report it.
Check out Pulpit Freedom Sunday:
http://speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702
And the article here, which includes a blurb at the end about how the IRS has ceased pursuing this kind of thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/business/flouting-the-law-pastors-will-take-on-politics.html?pagewanted=all
Quote from: Firebird on March 06, 2012, 02:56:58 AM
Quote from: Will37 on March 05, 2012, 05:24:31 PM
Church's do lose their tax exempt status if they directly advocate for a candidate or party. If you know of an instance where it has happened and they haven't been caught then report it.
Check out Pulpit Freedom Sunday:
http://speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702
And the article here, which includes a blurb at the end about how the IRS has ceased pursuing this kind of thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/business/flouting-the-law-pastors-will-take-on-politics.html?pagewanted=all
The first link is vile, the second equally so.