Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation

[tryreading]

Except if it is not given to the church but instead to a social service they provide.

Like I said if it makes you feel better vote to prevent these organizations from providing desperately need help to the community, just as a non-religious does.



Well actually it is if you are going to cite Madison and the founding fathers who believe NO social services should be provided by government using taxpayer monies.



No it is not a "crime" there is a difference between a criminal violation and a civil violation but I think your having to try and misrepresent it speaks volumes, if they do stop the money are you so against religion that you assume the will?

So vote for people who want to stop this cvaluable service or better yet really hold to the constitutional principle that it is not the role of the federal government to provide for social services.

You are mixing up two separate subjects. There are laws in the Constitution that illegalize the dangerous alliance between religion and government.

If there is a law in the Constitution that illegalizes non-religious social services, you should post it to prove your point. You haven't yet.

But the President is giving the money of all taxpayers to religious institutions. That is a violation. Whether the money goes to the poor or not is 'superfluous' like James Madison said. He avoided the precedent of this activity because he was a fair and highly intelligent man. The current administration should have done the same, but the President is blinded by his religion to the point that the law is secondary to him.

I will always vote for the people who I think will not support this type of violation, and who will put an end to any existing Constitutional violations. Our national law can not be shrugged off for any reason by those we elect.

 

[Stinger]

IF you want to oppose the good social work these groups do because of the reasons stated so far then do so. It is NOT unconstitutional for government to support their social programs anymore than it is for government to support other groups as long as the money does not to to support the advancement of their faith. But if you want to oppose it then elect politicians that do so they will end the money going to them which of course means those recieving the services will no longer recieve them. And in the meantime sue and take it to court.

But the President is giving the money of all taxpayers to religious institutions.

The government is giving money to assist the aid that groups give to the needy, including some who are founded in church groups. If you want to prevent them from helping people then vote for politicians who will cut the funding.

I will always vote for the people who I think will not support this type of violation, and who will put an end to any existing Constitutional violations. Our national law can not be shrugged off for any reason by those we elect.

If they are not advancing their faith through the services they are providing why do you oppose the great help they give to communities across the country?

 

[dragonslayer]

Americans United: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says Americans United

Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says Americans United
​

Wednesday, March 28, 2007


Politicians Should Stick To Legislating And Leave Decisions About Religion To Individual Americans, Says AU's Lynn


A group of U.S. lawmakers that today urged Americans to get “back to prayer” should stop meddling in religion and get back to work, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.


At noon, U.S. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) and congressional allies held a press conference at the Capitol to “officially call America back to prayer and encourage people to sign up to pray for our nation for five minutes each week.”


Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “Lawmakers should stick to their constitutional duties and leave religious decisions to individuals. Congressional meddling in religion is an affront to the First Amendment principle of church-state separation. Religion is too important to become a political football.”


Lynn noted that the nation’s Founding Fathers were against mixing religion and government.


James Madison, often referred to as the Father of the Constitution, noted in 1788, “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation.”


“There are a host of political issues of utmost importance to Americans,” said Lynn. “Rep. Forbes and other members of Congress should work on those and leave decisions about religion to the American people.”


Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

I agree 100%

We live in democracy where one can believe what they choose. I am a christian, and I am tired of other Americans trying to convert me to christianity.
I do not want to live by the rules of Pat Roberts, Jerry Falwell, or most of those tv preachers. Stay out of my government, stay out of my schools and and join me in accepting jesus as my savior if yu want. If yu don't want to do this, that is your choice and I respect it.

 

[Stinger]

I agree 100%

If they want to do this they should do it on their own time, on their own dollar and on their own property. Not in in official capacity, this IS mixing faith with government.

 

[tryreading]

IF you want to oppose the good social work these groups do because of the reasons stated so far then do so. It is NOT unconstitutional for government to support their social programs anymore than it is for government to support other groups as long as the money does not to to support the advancement of their faith. But if you want to oppose it then elect politicians that do so they will end the money going to them which of course means those recieving the services will no longer recieve them. And in the meantime sue and take it to court.

Your religion blinds you.

I don't want taxpayer money to go to churches. They can do their good social work on their own. I don't oppose that in any way.

If I were you, I wouldn't want a cent of government money going to the church. For every penny we give your church, we are going to gain a certain amount of control over it. If I were religious I would fight this violation, because it results in government interference in religion, and vice-versa. That's poison for both of them.

 

[Stinger]

Your religion blinds you.

I'm an atheist.

I don't want taxpayer money to go to churches.

I don't either, I want it to go to the social programs they run.

They can do their good social work on their own.

Well then so can all the other groups.

If I were you, I wouldn't want a cent of government money going to the church.

I don't, I want it to go to the people that need it if we are going to use taxpayer money at all for social purposes.

For every penny we give your church, we are going to gain a certain amount of control over it.

Over the social program they might be running, like every other program that receives taxpayer money.

If I were religious I would fight this violation,

I'm not and I don't.

because it results in government interference in religion,

It's not being given to advance the religious faith.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I'm an atheist.

What?!?! Since when?

 

[Stinger]

What?!?! Since when?

OH about the age of 18 or so.

 

[tryreading]

I'm an atheist.

Whatever. But you are inconsistent. I have seen your posts on other threads and you are always against any religion/government intrusion. But you're for this, where huge amounts of public money goes to churches. Doesn't make sense.

The reason our money is given to these churches doesn't matter. The act itself is a violation.

 

[Stinger]

Whatever.

:rofl Whatever? There went your argument about "my god".

But you are inconsistent.

Not at all, I'm not a secular zealot.

I have seen your posts on other threads and you are always against any religion/government intrusion.

I'm against religions using government to place their religious faith into the political arena or claiming to have a higher standing than others due to their religious faith. I'm against using public funds for religious purposes.

But you're for this, where huge amounts of public money goes to churches.

You keep repeating that as if the money goes into the operation of the church and into paying for the ceremonies a church engages in or in the furthering of their faith as oppose to what the money is actually for, helping others. Why do you keep insinuating that?

Doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense is not taking advantage of these organizations and the service they can provide.

The reason our money is given to these churches doesn't matter. The act itself is a violation.

If it is given to support or advance the religious faith, but if it isn't why do you care. Do you oppose poor people recieving medical aid from the government going the Religious based hospital? Like a poor child in need going to St. Judes Hospital if a portion of the child's bill will be paid from a taxpayer source? Against that.

 

[tryreading]

:rofl Whatever? There went your argument about "my god".



Not at all, I'm not a secular zealot.



I'm against religions using government to place their religious faith into the political arena or claiming to have a higher standing than others due to their religious faith. I'm against using public funds for religious purposes.



You keep repeating that as if the money goes into the operation of the church and into paying for the ceremonies a church engages in or in the furthering of their faith as oppose to what the money is actually for, helping others. Why do you keep insinuating that?



What doesn't make sense is not taking advantage of these organizations and the service they can provide.



If it is given to support or advance the religious faith, but if it isn't why do you care. Do you oppose poor people recieving medical aid from the government going the Religious based hospital? Like a poor child in need going to St. Judes Hospital if a portion of the child's bill will be paid from a taxpayer source? Against that.

Don't care whose God it is. It was natural to think you were religious because of your standpoint. You seem to think its perfectly fine for the government to give public money to churches.

At least some of the money given to churches will advance their religious goals. That is, to me, a common sense conclusion.

But, even if none of it, not a cent, went for religious purposes, the very act of the federal government giving money to the church is a crime to me.

Like James Madison said when he wouldn't allow this type of action when he was President, the reason for giving money to churches, for purposes of 'pious charity,' is superfluous and does not justify the Constitutional violation.

 

[Stinger]

It was natural to think you were religious because of your standpoint.

I haven't argued for religious faith at all and many I know who believe as I do don't see a problem with religious groups participating in and for the good of the community. I have worked with such groups in such projects and they can bring a lot highly motivated people to distribute aid and assistence to those in need without their faith being an issue or advanced.

You seem to think its perfectly fine for the government to give public money to churches.

I think it perfectly fine for religious groups to conduits for federal aid, which is only a small part of their overall resources, just like many other groups of private citizens. If they divert any money into religious activities then they get cut off the programs.

At least some of the money given to churches will advance their religious goals. That is, to me, a common sense conclusion.

It's pure conjecture.

But, even if none of it, not a cent, went for religious purposes, the very act of the federal government giving money to the church is a crime to me.

As already explained it wouldn't be criminal unless Congress passes a law and puts it in the US Criminal Code.

Why do you have to misrepresent everything about this issue in order to make your case?

Like James Madison said when he wouldn't allow this type of action when he was President, the reason for giving money to churches, for purposes of 'pious charity,' is superfluous and does not justify the Constitutional violation.

Madison didn't believe in ANY government charitable spending

""The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.""

So are you for ending all government wel-fare, housing and medical spending for the poor? If you are going to use Madison as your cornerstone then you have to be for ending all government assistance to individuals.

 

[tryreading]

Madison didn't believe in ANY government charitable spending

""The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.""

So are you for ending all government wel-fare, housing and medical spending for the poor? If you are going to use Madison as your cornerstone then you have to be for ending all government assistance to individuals.

But, again, Madison wrote his thoughts about federal government support of the church, even for purposes of 'pious charity,' into the Constitution. The statement you quoted above is not written there.

My personal view on social programs funded by the government directly is that they should be very limited to helping those who are helpless and in dire need, and those people only temporarily if they can improve their situation. But, again, public money to churches is on a much highel level of concern because it violates our highest law.

 

[Stinger]

But, again, Madison wrote his thoughts about federal government support of the church,

But again Madison wrote his thoughts about ALL charitiable spending with taxpayers dollars.

The statement you quoted above is not written there.

So what?

My personal view on social programs funded by the government directly is that they should be very limited

So you only agree with him when it suits you. He was against ALL federal involvement in social spending, not just money that would funnel through religious groups. If you are going to use him as your cornerstone then you have to oppose any and all government activities in such matters.

And again what about taxpayer money paying hospitals to care for the needy? Should we prohibit money going to St. Judes Hospital?

 

[tryreading]

But again Madison wrote his thoughts about ALL charitiable spending with taxpayers dollars.



And again what about taxpayer money paying hospitals to care for the needy? Should we prohibit money going to St. Judes Hospital?

But again you miss the critical point - He wrote his opposition to the support of the church into the Constitution. That's the thing, the high law is what matters.

How is St. Judes a religious institution?

 

[Stinger]

But again you miss the critical point

No YOU miss the point, he opposed ALL federally sponsored charity not just through religious groups. So do you agree with him or not?

How is St. Judes a religious institution?

I just used it as an example of a Hospital with a church affiliation one that might be know. It doesn't, Thomas only named it after his favorite Catholic Saint. So how about Providence Hospital here in my city.

"Providence Hospital traces its roots to 17th-century France, where in 1633 a parish priest, Vincent de Paul, and an aristocratic widow, Louise de Marillac, founded a new religious order dedicated to serving the poor. Unlike other Catholic sisters, the Daughters of Charity were not cloistered. Instead, they took their ministry to the people most in need."

So Medicare patients be prevent from seeking treatment there? Should the outpatient programs that treat seniors, like my mother, not recieve any federal funds to support those outreach efforts even if it doesn't mix with any religious activities?

 

[tryreading]

No YOU miss the point, he opposed ALL federally sponsored charity not just through religious groups. So do you agree with him or not?]

He opposed giving public money to churches even for charitable purposes per the Constitution. You are blind to the difference for some reason.

I just used it as an example of a Hospital with a church affiliation one that might be know. It doesn't, Thomas only named it after his favorite Catholic Saint. So how about Providence Hospital here in my city.

"Providence Hospital traces its roots to 17th-century France, where in 1633 a parish priest, Vincent de Paul, and an aristocratic widow, Louise de Marillac, founded a new religious order dedicated to serving the poor. Unlike other Catholic sisters, the Daughters of Charity were not cloistered. Instead, they took their ministry to the people most in need."

So Medicare patients be prevent from seeking treatment there? Should the outpatient programs that treat seniors, like my mother, not recieve any federal funds to support those outreach efforts even if it doesn't mix with any religious activities?

It would be fine with me if the federal government required any medical facilities recieving public money to be classified as non-religious institutions.

The facility could do exactly what it currently does without any religious connection, and the people who run it could feel just as good about their charitable goals as long as they could handle not having their religion advertised with government assistance, another type of social program you should be opposed to.

 

[OKgrannie]

And again what about taxpayer money paying hospitals to care for the needy? Should we prohibit money going to St. Judes Hospital?

It definitely is a problem when religious-operated hospitals confine the treatment of patients to their religious teachings. That has been a problem with Catholic hospitals refusing to give emergency contraception to rape victims, or even tell patients that EC exists. What do you think should be done to solve this problem?

Catholic Hospitals Refuse Patients Contraception

"Another practice, however, might soon become more commonly prescribed--carefully consider the hospital in which to seek medical attention--after a survey released in December found that many Roman Catholic hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims.

The survey, commissioned by Catholics for a Free Choice, a Washington-based advocacy group that promotes issues of gender equality and reproductive health, found that only 28 percent of Catholic hospitals in 47 states and the District of Columbia would provide emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill" or EC, to rape victims. Fifty-five percent of Catholic hospitals wouldn't dispense emergency contraception under any circumstances. The survey found that most of the hospitals that do provide emergency contraception set up barriers, such as pregnancy tests and police reports, before administering the drug."

 

[Stinger]

He opposed giving public money to churches even for charitable purposes per the Constitution. You are blind to the difference for some reason.

And ALL such spending NOT JUST through churches are you blind to see that he said ALL? So if you are going to use him as the foundation of your position then you must oppose ALL such federal spending.

It would be fine with me if the federal government required any medical facilities recieving public money to be classified as non-religious institutions.

So no Catholic hospital could treat Medicare or Medicaid patients nor recieve any federal funds to help the poor?

How about this. Recent project to build homes for the poor, which they would get a subsidized mortgage and pay for it and eventually own it. Several community groups come together to build the home, the new owners have to help also. Federal funds are part of the mix. One of the groups involve is a church group. Oppose this too?

 

[Stinger]

It definitely is a problem when religious-operated hospitals confine the treatment of patients to their religious teachings. That has been a problem with Catholic hospitals refusing to give emergency contraception to rape victims, or even tell patients that EC exists. What do you think should be done to solve this problem?

So you would deny EVERYTHING else the hospital does based on this one situtation?

What folly.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1209There is truth to the statement that there are zealots on both sides of the issue.

 

[OKgrannie]

Originally Posted by OKgrannie
It definitely is a problem when religious-operated hospitals confine the treatment of patients to their religious teachings. That has been a problem with Catholic hospitals refusing to give emergency contraception to rape victims, or even tell patients that EC exists. What do you think should be done to solve this problem?

So you would deny EVERYTHING else the hospital does based on this one situtation?

What folly.

There is truth to the statement that there are zealots on both sides of the issue.

The question is: WHAT do you think should be done to solve this problem? Do you have an answer or do you just deny there is a problem?