Obama: More funding for the Lord's work

fanch75

Mukluk4 wrote:

I'm so happy that 1 Sunday out of 52 was set aside to help someone in need!

That's exactly my issue with Christianity as a whole. There could have been 52 Sunday's in which all of the donations could have helped someone in need.

Yes, because the other 51 Sundays were spent helping no one. :rolleyes:

SeeTheWorld

This may be an ignorant question, but does anyone know what the taxpayer funded portions are in a religious organization?

Collin

Can't the lord fund his own work?

chopitdown

Mukluk4 wrote:

I'm so happy that 1 Sunday out of 52 was set aside to help someone in need!

That's exactly my issue with Christianity as a whole. There could have been 52 Sunday's in which all of the donations could have helped someone in need.

most churches do support people in need from the offerings the other 51 Sundays. Churches support different missions, missionaries, charities etc...

chopitdown

Kenny Olav wrote:

i was going to say i will celebrate the far far off day when we elect our first athiest/agnostic President (or Senator, or Congressman, or Governor, or city councilman outside of San Francisco) but my opinion is that very few politicians actually believe in the religions they espouse.

so i will instead say i will celebrate the far far off day when we elect our first honest President.

or how bout the day when we celebrate groups helping other people rather than criticizing those groups for not doing enough.

chopitdown

Cosmo wrote:

...
That's what I'm getting at.
The church is not in it for the money... are they? And these people they are helping... can, in turn, help the church, right? Help a guy and his family out and ask if he can help rake the leaves or dust off the pews.
Of course, there are operating expenses that cannot be denied (mortgage, insurance, utilities, etc...). But the human factor... those services could be voluentary.
Need to paint... ask for donations specifically for paint... hit up the local Home Depot or paint supply stores, see if they can help. Need to replace the faulty P.A., have a rummage sale or something.
If the people who attend the church on Sunday really believe in the church... you'd think they'd have no problem getting them down to take care of the basic maintenance.

the average american church has about 75-80 people that attend on a weekly basis and the average amount given per attendee (including children and those who don't give) is around 2,000 dollars. so at best those churches are receiving 160,000 dollars / year to pay all the bills, pay for sunday school materials, paying for pastors etc... In the average church there's not a boat load of money just sitting around not being used by much more than necessities.

Thecure

i find in quite funny that instead of people talking abotu what Obama is saying we are going again to some issue abotu churches. if you notice, teh article talks about religious agencies not specifically churches. i think that this is a really bad idea only becuase of what the article says in the 1st paragraph. that you can fire soemone because they don't follow your code of religion.

chopitdown

Thecure wrote:

i find in quite funny that instead of people talking abotu what Obama is saying we are going again to some issue abotu churches. if you notice, teh article talks about religious agencies not specifically churches. i think that this is a really bad idea only becuase of what the article says in the 1st paragraph. that you can fire soemone because they don't follow your code of religion.

from a different paragraph...
He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

How is that any different from firing someone for not following a businesses code of ethics or business model? All business have a mission statement and set of expecations etc... A religious entity is no different. I just can't believe that people are getting up in arms over allowing the federal gov't to dole out money to help people. That's the bottom line...big deal if it's a church or a religious agency. The government cannot do everything and the govt is allowing other agencies, that presumably can, to do some work and help people.
Never would I have thought that on such a liberal help everybody board, there would be such resistance to allowing people to help others with federal funds (oh that's right, religion is bad and is only a tool of the powerful to control people). If the religious entities can do it better than the govt, why not let them???? If the atheists got together and said we want to help people and they could do it better than the govt or religious, LET them do it and receive my tax dollars.

SeeTheWorld

I think that because of all the fundamentalist bullshit that has been pulled in recent years, Christianity has become a bad word to a lot of people, myself included. When I first heard this story I felt that Obama had seriously gone off the deep end. When I educated myself about it though, and really read the words he said, it makes perfect sense, and is the absolute right thing to do. Why shouldn't religious organizations get benefits for helping those less fortunate? Other groups do. There are many NFP groups that large groups of people don't agree with, yet they still get tax payer funds. Religion in general gets everyone's dander up, but as long as the system is fair to ALL religious organizations and the funds are going to pay for outreach and not, say, the ministers annual trip to Maui (which is why I asked about the allocation of taxpayer funds above), I don't see how it is a bad thing. Just as we can't give preference to any or all religions, we also can't discriminate against them.

DixieN

Well put. Religion sells politicians, so politicians peddle hazy views of religion designed to sell themselves. I would look forward to the dream of electing an honest person to office, but I know full well that no honest person will ever run. Strict honesty and politics are antithetical to one another.

Thecure

chopitdown wrote:

from a different paragraph...
He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

How is that any different from firing someone for not following a businesses code of ethics or business model? All business have a mission statement and set of expecations etc... A religious entity is no different. I just can't believe that people are getting up in arms over allowing the federal gov't to dole out money to help people. That's the bottom line...big deal if it's a church or a religious agency. The government cannot do everything and the govt is allowing other agencies, that presumably can, to do some work and help people.
Never would I have thought that on such a liberal help everybody board, there would be such resistance to allowing people to help others with federal funds (oh that's right, religion is bad and is only a tool of the powerful to control people). If the religious entities can do it better than the govt, why not let them???? If the atheists got together and said we want to help people and they could do it better than the govt or religious, LET them do it and receive my tax dollars.

let me give you a story. there is a single women who is pregant and she goes to a clinic which just so happens to be the only one around her area. so she goes in teh place and starts to listen to teh councellor there and teh councellor program is pro-life. this women is going there to get all her options on what she can do. becuase the program is pro-life she does not get all teh options that she would get in other non-faith programs. she feel presuured by the councellor and decides to never go back there. as was said before, that is the only clinic that is around her area so she loses out on options that would be good for her.

that is a true story from where i work. that is why i hav emajor problems with this idea. i also find it funny that you don't have a problem is having teh government give money to people who can fire people becuase of different beliefs. can you name a business who would fire someone over their religion? i can't i can see a person getting fire becuase they are not doing their jobs.

chopitdown

Thecure wrote:

let me give you a story. there is a single women who is pregant and she goes to a clinic which just so happens to be the only one around her area. so she goes in teh place and starts to listen to teh councellor there and teh councellor program is pro-life. this women is going there to get all her options on what she can do. becuase the program is pro-life she does not get all teh options that she would get in other non-faith programs. she feel presuured by the councellor and decides to never go back there. as was said before, that is the only clinic that is around her area so she loses out on options that would be good for her.

that is a true story from where i work. that is why i hav emajor problems with this idea. i also find it funny that you don't have a problem is having teh government give money to people who can fire people becuase of different beliefs. can you name a business who would fire someone over their religion? i can't i can see a person getting fire becuase they are not doing their jobs.

in response to your story. a) "good" for her is merely your subjective view. in today's world you cant tell me that that the single woman has never heard of abortion...sorry, not gonna buy it. Unless she's 7.

let me give you a story. There's a group of people who don't have homes and need food and shelter. These people go to a building and are given just that for a few nights. They might be able to stay there longer if there was more money available to host them and pay for the food / shelter / clothing...this is a true story from my church.
I'm not going to paint every situation as bleak as your isolated event and as rosy and idealistic as mine; but clearly there will be people that benefit and prob people that don't. If you're looking for a perfect world and perfect situations every time to justify something, you won't find it...and if you do, that situation is full of it. This policy seems like the first step in introducing common sense back into politics...I don't even support Obama and I like this idea.

The real question in this is why would someone who doesn't share a faith with an organization want to get a job there? The faith-firing thing is just something for people to argue about, that prob won't matter at all.

cornnifer

Collin wrote:

Can't the lord fund his own work?

i understand and respect how this might not make sense to you, but some might say setting a goal of 25,000, and surpassing that goal by more than 100,000, as in the example i gave above, is an example of "the lord funding his own work".