Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

noodles_jefferson

callen wrote:

.....the church's that get the money prothlesyze (sp?) those that go for help.

this is true. and they'll say they won't but they still will. still, churches do a lot of good in communities and are often the front line in dealing with the poor. we can't totally ignore that. one thing Obama said that i agree with is it's goin to take more than just the government to tackle issues of poverty in this country. it's goign to take a partership between religious and non-religious organizations, private and public, working together.

cornnifer

noodles_jefferson wrote:

the only issue i have is that i think churches, synagogues, mosques should pay taxes. I'm ok with distributing tax payer money to organizations that are using it on secular programs that help communities, but religious organizations should pay their fair share of taxes on the huge amounts of money they pull in so that they can contribute that way. If we're going to support them, regardless of affiliation, then they should do the same in return.

Pehaps to a degree, but, generally speaking, faith organizations are not federaly funded organizations. They operate almost exclusively on member donation.

Commy

cornnifer wrote:

Pehaps to a degree, but, generally speaking, faith organizations are not federaly funded organizations. They operate almost exclusively on member donation.

and tax free. I'm thinking of making my house a 'place of worship'. put a cross in my yard, frame the koran on my porch- tax free.

noodles_jefferson

cornnifer wrote:

Pehaps to a degree, but, generally speaking, faith organizations are not federaly funded organizations. They operate almost exclusively on member donation.

complicated issue. what happens if the govt sends funding to a church that opens a senior center. and let's say a guy from the neighborhood who happens to be an atheist wants to work there. Will he be turned away because of his non-faith? would the govt. be accused of funding an org that used discriminatory practices?

noodles_jefferson

cornnifer, you made a great point earlier. I think the subtle message he's sending here is that those who truly want to live the example of Christ should take a progressive stance politically. care for eachother. care for your neighbor. take care of the poor. take care of the environment. be non-violent. these are the things that Christ stood for and these are the thnigs progressives belive in. It's a message directed to those religious people who have been hoodwinked over gay marriage and obortion issues by guys who are violent, don't care about the environment or the poor, or anybody but themselves. He is going to brign a lof of religious people back the the democratic party.

cornnifer

Commy wrote:

and tax free. I'm thinking of making my house a 'place of worship'. put a cross in my yard, frame the koran on my porch- tax free.

Hey, man, if you can pass yourself off as legitimate and attract enough members willing to support you in exchange for the spiritual guidance and teaching you have to offer so that you can support your family and pay your bills... cool.

Good luck with that.

cornnifer

noodles_jefferson wrote:

He is going to brign a lof of religious people back the the democratic party.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

DriftingByTheStorm

69charger wrote:

Wrong. I'm probably going to vote for the guy now that the 2nd Amendment is defined.

Been defined, or been destroyed !?!

What part of that SC ruling gives you ANY comfort?

They all but crossed it out of the bill of rights.
They said, you have a right to own guns, but we can basicaly do anything we want to restrict that right, short of an outright ban.

:(

DriftingByTheStorm

cornnifer wrote:

If support was afforded to ONLY Christian churches, for example, or ONLY mosques, or ONLY synogougues etc., you may have a weak argument. Because, that isn't happening, however, you don't even have that.

Furthermore, an honest, sincere, appeal is not the same as pandering. There is a difference.

How about, based on the Constitution's FAILURE TO DEFINE A SPECIFIC POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DISTRIBUTE (ILLEGAL) INCOME TAX DOLLARS TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, THERE IS THUS NO SUCH AUTHORITY FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO THAT?

How about THAT for an argument?

:(