Tax Payer Money for Religious Charities

  • Thread starter Thread starter SalesianSDB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SalesianSDB

Guest
Florida has a proposed amendment on the ballot to allow tax payer money to go to religious charities and organizations. Here is a brief summary of the amendment:
This amendment would overturn a part of the state Constitution that blocks taxpayer funds from being spent on religious institutions, including any churches, sects and religious denominations. The new language, replacing a provision in the Constitution going back more than 125 years, says an individual or entity may not be denied funding, benefits or support based on religious identity or belief.
Click to expand...
I have read the suggestion of the local bishops to vote yes on this amendment.

As a registered member of the state Libertarian Party, I was reading the Libertarian Party of Florida suggestions for different amendments. They suggested no as they feel as if tax payer dollars shouldn’t go to religious organizations or charities. The LPF website says:
Faith-based charities and organizations provide a valuable benefit to Florida and the Nation, but the LPF rejects those same organizations being funded with tax dollars.** If the State of Florida wants to ensure that churches, synagogues, mosques and other faith-based charities are well funded, perhaps they should cut taxes so that the people of Florida would have more disposable income to donate to the faith of their choice.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with their reasoning.

Also, I just read an article via the Acton Institute that since Catholic schools in Canada get public funding, they have less flexibility.
This is the article: blog.acton.org/archives/37466-no-bullies-in-schools-unless-its-the-government.html#.UH2l7KN5mSM
“What Catholic Charities of Tulsa is doing is showing the way forward for Catholics and other Christians who want to be faithful to the ancient Church’s age-old moral teachings, and who want to assist those in need without compromising the truth of the Gospel,” wrote Dr. Samuel Gregg, research director at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty…
Click to expand...
Fr. Robert Sirico, the president of Acton, agrees. “I think we need to separate the giving from the mechanism of the state,” he said. “There’s the threat that he who drinks the king’s wine sings the king’s song.”
Click to expand...
With all this information, I am leaning towards voting no on this amendment.

What are your thoughts on an amendment like this?
 
I don’t like the idea. That means that my money can go to a Muslim charity, a Hindu charity, a Sikh charity, ect. Honestly I agree with separation of Church and state. I don’t want to have my money going to a religious charity I do not agree with or someone else’s money going to a Catholic charity when they oppose Catholicism.
 
I know our Bishop wants us to vote yes, but it’s a precedent that I’m really not comfortable setting.
 
Libertarian Party of Florida supports gary johnson a pro-abortion ,pro- same sex marriage candidate for president ,nuff said.
 
april32010 said:
Libertarian Party of Florida supports gary johnson a pro-abortion ,pro- same sex marriage candidate for president ,nuff said.
Click to expand...
So even if they have a reasoned opinion about an unrelated issue, we must disregard it???
 
The driver ultimately behind this particular push is being able to open up the education system to non athiest teaching.

Its a freedom question, freedom of religion.

Why should I a parent be forced to send my kid only to athiestic schools because I am to poor to afford private education. To allow individual parents the option of choosing an athiestic, or a catholic, or a protestant, or a muslim education for their children by allowing them to direct their education $$ to the school of their choice is important.

As a liberatarian one could say the state should not even provide education services at all. But if the state is providing education services via tax dollars a libertarian would side toward personal freedom not government stipulation.

As a Catholic I would support our Bishops…

thefloridacatholic.org/iv/vote_yes_on_amendment_8_to_preserve_religious_freedom?parent_cat_id=1641
 
I would vote no…

Those who are pushing the idea have sincere hearts I am sure…they see a way of getting “more bang” for the buck by channeling the money through private charities instead of creating a bureaucracy that duplicates the effort.
Unfortunately such money inevitably winds up with too many political strings attached and once the charities start counting on that as part of their budget…the gov’t has them hooked.

Peace
James
 
HERE IS THE ACTUAL FLORIDA CONSTITUTION WORDING…AS IS…WITH…THE “RED” BEING…WHAT WILL BE REMOVED.
NO. 8
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE I, SECTION 3
(Legislative)
Click to expand...
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 3. Religious freedom.—There shall be no law respecting the
establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious
freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace, or safety.
Except to the extent required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
neither the government nor any agent of the government may deny to any individual or
entity the benefits of any program, funding, or other support on the basis of religious
identity or belief.** No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution**
election.dos.state.fl.us/publications/pdf/2012/2012_Constitutional_Amendments_English_9-28-12.pdf
Click to expand...
In my mind that language in the “Red” is very biased and a prejudiced against religious institutions who provide services for the State/County/City…for the Common Good…not for their religious mission.

If the State pays…say $100 million a year to government agencies/organizations and to secular (non religious/faith based) organizations who operate Shelters for the homeless…and the Catholic Church (or any other faith based organization) also runs a Shelter…why should my tax dollars or an atheist’s tax dollars not also be available for the religious/faith based organizations…to provide the same Common Good services…to all comers…irregardless of their faith or religion…or lack thereof?

Its not about religion…its about service for the Common Good. Also, if the Constitution is changed by passage of Amendment 8…there is no guarantee that the government has to give any private organization any money…but if they do…they can’t summarily exclude faith based organizations…who do not exclude or litmus test anyone needing their services.

Simply, if faith based/religious citizens are paying taxes to help Government provide a charity service for those in need…including contracting outside of government …private organizations…why can’t those tax dollars go to faith base/religious organization…who do the same thing…and historically Catholic ones who do it better and cheaper.

If the government puts some stipulations in the contract that violate Catholic Church Social Doctrine… faith based conscience issues…then Catholic Church can opt “not to play”…take no tax funded monies…but it is unjust and unconstitutional to summarily exclude them…wrong-headed at best…and…Blaine Amendment prejudiced at worse.

That said, Its a prudential judgment issue…Catholics can vote either" Yes" or “No”…but should give serious consideration to “Yes”… because the Shepards of our souls…have asked us to do so.

Pre-Vatican II…the insular Church would never get involved…but post Vatican II…the Holy Spirit has turned the Church into a “get into the Public Square”…and get with it"… Church.

Lastly…I prefer to vote “No”…can’t stand the smell of the State…anywhere near my Church. My strong consideration for a “Yes” vote…can’t stand seeing the Church being beat up by punk secularists.

Pax Christi
 
Lancer,
The biggest concern here is simply this. If a church organization starts taking government monies then they being to fall under government control. It’s that simple…
Say for instance the Government helps fund a Catholic Adoption agency. Then the state passes a Same Sex Marriage law. They tell the Adoption agency that they must accept applications from Same Sex couples…or lose their funding…
What does the Agency do???
I believe something similar to this has already happened in Massachusetts.

If proper protections could be put in place - that the monies are issued “no strings attached” that would be different…But of course that can never really happen…

Peace
James
 
Remember, it isn’t just funding for Christians…does your “yes” include religions other than your own?
 
I’d vote yes. It helps out the poor and ultimately helps out Catholic Church charities because they are the most prominent and therefore most likely to receive money. I know the other side of the argument but if government is going to manipulate charities because they have atheist leanings (or whatever the case might be), I’d think they would just stop funding them.

🤷
 
If any organization accepts government money, then it has to accept that the government will tell them how to spend it. Vote no, if the government starts telling Catholic Charities how to do their job, then it is just a matter of time before it starts telling the bishop how to administer his diocese and the pastors how to run their parishes.
 
Those against this make valid points as to the dangers. But what they fail to recognize and elucidate are the serious dangers of voting NO.

Voting No and keeping the current status quo means that secular charities advancing the “God is irrelevant at best” worldview will get all the taxpayer funding. Is that really much better than the camel’s nose getting into the tent? Same outcome, I assert.

As the government continues to take more and more of our money to tackle more and more issues, we simply have less left to give to our religious charities. Perhaps the bishop is right. Perhaps we have a better chance at equal funding opportunities for non-sectarian goals (feeding hungry, etc) while fighting attempts in the courts to use that funding as leverage to change our beliefs than we do in surrendering the battlefield to the secularists to simply use all tax money as THEY see fit. You really think they aren’t advancing THEIR agenda in their agencies and groups?
 
manualman said:
Those against this make valid points as to the dangers. But what they fail to recognize and elucidate are the serious dangers of voting NO.

Voting No and keeping the current status quo means that secular charities advancing the “God is irrelevant at best” worldview will get all the taxpayer funding. Is that really much better than the camel’s nose getting into the tent? Same outcome, I assert.

As the government continues to take more and more of our money to tackle more and more issues, we simply have less left to give to our religious charities. Perhaps the bishop is right. Perhaps we have a better chance at equal funding opportunities for non-sectarian goals (feeding hungry, etc) while fighting attempts in the courts to use that funding as leverage to change our beliefs than we do in surrendering the battlefield to the secularists to simply use all tax money as THEY see fit. You really think they aren’t advancing THEIR agenda in their agencies and groups?
Click to expand...
There was a smiling young lady from Niger
Who rode on the back of a tiger
When she finished the ride
She wound up inside
With her smile on the face of the tiger.

This little ditty is meant to illustrate that once you let (as you say) the camels nose in the tent, his mouth will not be far behind. And eventually you may find that either you are forced out of the tent (like the Catholic adoption in Massachusetts) or eaten (corrupted).
I would still vote no…

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Lancer,
The biggest concern here is simply this. If a church organization starts taking government monies then they being to fall under government control. It’s that simple…
Say for instance the Government helps fund a Catholic Adoption agency. Then the state passes a Same Sex Marriage law. They tell the Adoption agency that they must accept applications from Same Sex couples…or lose their funding…
What does the Agency do???
I believe something similar to this has already happened in Massachusetts.
Click to expand...
And in the UK as well. Accepting state funds allows a certain amount of state control; “Do what we ask or you don’t get any more funding…”

rossum
 
You’re still fighting the wrong battle. If government funding inevitably leads to government control of mission, then your battle is NOT to prevent the government funding of religious charities, but to prevent their funding of ALL charities. Good luck.

The battle you are fighting right now is essentially a battle to grant all government NGO funds to secularist controlled charitable organizations. Nice work. Which side you on??
 
manualman said:
You’re still fighting the wrong battle. If government funding inevitably leads to government control of mission, then your battle is NOT to prevent the government funding of religious charities, but to prevent their funding of ALL charities. Good luck.

The battle you are fighting right now is essentially a battle to grant all government NGO funds to secularist controlled charitable organizations. Nice work. Which side you on??
Click to expand...
I’m not fighting a battle at all…I am giving my opinion on the proposition, as proposed, in Florida.

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top