The end for tax-funded religious service agencies?

Wow, TWmatthews, you missed my point big time.

Let's try again. The difference between us is this: the "people's" work VS "Government work". The chasm between them is huge.

My point is quite simple: the government should NOT be engaged in activities that are not directly related to its raison d'etre. Among the few legitimate reasons to even have a government is common defense. Where does extracting money from productive people and giving it to non productive people fit in that scheme? It simply doesn't.

As a litmus test it seems simple enough: if a faith based group can do the work better then it is very probable that the work is outside of the scope of our government.

Liberals simply don't get this point. To them the government is fount of all that is good. By invoking the coercive power of the government we can supplant charity with obedience and everyone will get something, right?

I live in the hood. I see the failure of the "war on poverty" each and every day. It doesn't work, it vitiates the human spirit and it crushes all of us under the weight of a huge, expensive and capricious machine. NO THANKS.

Perhaps you should try seeing things from a different perspective for once. Instead of all this thoughtless bombast seek to understand the point of view that others have.

TWMatthews I acknowledge the logic of your critique of my comment.It is fair and reasonable.I still feel if the health care package is passed without ironclad guarantees that religious institutions will not be required to provide services which are contrary to their teaching then there will be a clear danger that freedom to practice one's religious beliefs will be threatened.It is not the Church which is imposing its teachings on others but those who disagree with the Church's teaching who are trying to force religious people to join them in carrying out abortions and other actions that fail to respect the dignity of the human person

SkipSailing28 says, "I think there is a basic flaw in the premise of the above. That premise is that the Catholic Charities were accepting tax funds to "do the people's work".

They were accepting funds to do work the government subcontracted out. How is that not the government's work? You have no say in what the government decides is public responsibilities other than to elect similar thinking people. Suppose I provide munitions for the department of defense, do you think I should be the one that says which munitions get built and which ones I am morally against? Can you imagine Boeing taking a couple of billion dollars for a ballistic missile system and then decide not to build one that carries nuclear war heads because of moral reasons?

When is it ever right for a service organization to take government funding for performing a particular service and then ignore anti discrimination laws because of their own, personal biases?

And MaryMarck77, Catholics and all other citizens pay taxes. But we don't directly get to decide which laws we will follow.

I don't really understand your point. I own a software company and unlike the Catholic church I pay both personal and corporate taxes. Should I be allowed to discriminate in my hiring because of my own moral leanings? Should I be allowed to accept government money to perform a service, like building some software, but only hire certain people because I pay taxes?

Catholics pay taxes.It is only fair that some of their tax dollars should go back to supporting the hospitals and schools they have established and which have provided wonderful service for the wider community.It is illogical to expect Catholic institutions to provide services which are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.People who want procedures or teaching that is contrary to Catholic teaching have plenty of other options in a secular culture.

I think we should let the Catholic Church take their toys and go home! And we should be glad when they do--witness the mess in Ireland after 40 years of abuse in the schools & orphanages; witness what is happening in the Netherlands right now; the mess here in America with the priests and the church hierarchy covering it all up for decades; and the newly exposed procurement for one of gentlemen of his holiness! It is time to let them close and get our secular services up to par instead of allowing any religion to hold us hostage with their threats of leaving the needy with no help.

Houses of worship should not receive government funding for governmental service delivery. Period. Our commitment to separation of "church" and state demands that those services to which Americans are entitled be provided either directly by government employees or by nonsectarian agencies.

Moreover, religious institutions should no longer be tax exempt. Nonprofit status for such entities was never acceptable, and is less so in these times of economic distress.

As for not hiring those of one's faith, I suspect that will not stand up against the Establishment clause except in those instances when sectarian credentials are clearly called for.

Finally, since lobbying by religious institutions has clearly resulted in legislation consistent with religionist demands, that lobbying must no longer be permitted. It is tantamount to establishment.

Separation of "church" and state. Long overdue.

wow, talk about missing the point!

Let me summarize jhaltom's position: if something must be done by society, then ONLY the Federal government is the proper vehicle.

Really?

Where did I say that I wanted orphans to starve? Nowhere. This is just how so called progressives engage in so called debate. By falsely ascribing to me statements I never made jhalton not only LIES but he weakens whatever argument he or she might have had.

yes we should have some sort of institution to help those that we as people believe to be worthy of our aid. What that has to do with the government is never adequately addressed by jhalton.

What is so sad about this is that jhalton cannot imagine a life without an intrusive government. jhalton cannot imagine a society where people of good will care for each other without all the sturm and drang that is attached to our government.

I live in the hood. I see the abject failure of government programs every day. no mas.

SKIPSAILING28,

Well, if you don't think the government should have a role in dealing with homeless children, then sure. But I don't think you'll find many people on that page. As a society we've pretty much agreed that a child who has their parents killed in a car accident should be moved into a system to find a home for him, instead of forced to starve to death or live under a bridge.

Since we all (except you?) seem to agree that this is a requirement of living in a civilized country, we have to establish some institution to ENSURE that the issue is taken care of. Whenever we speak of things being ENSURED, we are necessarily speaking of government. Churches go under. Charities change focus. Corporations don't care about kids living under bridges. And so we use government.

It seems to me that you really either did not read the article Mr. Flynn wrote, are an incredibly cruel individual, or are incapable of carefully considering complicated topics. I see no other possibilities based on your comment.

Good day.

I think there is a basic flaw in the premise of the above. That premise is that the Catholic Charities were accepting tax funds to "do the people's work".

What's the problem? Is whatever the catholic charities were doing really the responsibility of the government? I hardly think so.

Rather than berate the Catholics for having the temerity to do what THEY believe is right, why not question why the government is involved in these activities at all?

Common sense seems to indicate that if a faith based charity can perform the task better than our government, it isn't within the rightful purview of the government to begin with.

For all the pomp MR Flynn brings to bear it is easy to see at which altar he prays: the almighty Federal Government.

No thanks.