I agree.

The governmet has its own welfare programs, the church should not be using government funding for their own social programs. Churches in this country get away with a lot more than any other businesses. I for one think they should be paying property tax at least for the hugh amount of land they take away from possible taxable businesses.

I use to think that churches should be able to accept federal funding but have since changed my mind due to the fact that it gives the government a foot into the door of your church, mass, synagogue, temple, etc. A religion must be free to practice genuinely the precepts of its religion without interferences from government. My religion becomes valueless when certain comprises are made which are contradictory to the faith.

Some who are on the outside of the faiths of others may see some of the required precepts as discrimination, but it is not and I see it as very disrespectful to even consider that such is discrimination just because you have a different belief system.

It takes great character for one to respect another’s faith and not attempt to force them to belief what you believe. It is not discrimination in the Muslim or Jewish faith that woman must kneel and pray behind the men, it makes very good sense and it is being very respectful to women but many on the outside see it as discriminating against women and even if it was, it is the faith they have chosen or have been born into and have chosen to follow.

Nor is it discrimination that male doctors cannot examine Muslim women.

It is not discrimination that the Catholic Church or any Religion that places children from parents of that faith into adoptive homes must do so with families of the same faith and in homosexual couple homes and not homosexuals. It is totally narcissistic to even think that an orthodox Jewish mother must be willing to place her child in a Christian home or in the care of a homosexual couple and this goes also for Christian families, Muslim families or any other faith that have such precepts that do not allow these things.

It is not discrimination that orthodox Jews who live still under the law in most areas of their lives do not marry outside their faith.

Nor is it discrimination that a faith must hire people of that same faith in certain positions, and many times not even just the same faith, but also from all appearances of things, appear that the individual is obedient to the precepts of that faith.

When one follows the precepts of their religion concerning such things, it is not done out of evil intent but in honor of the God that they worship and follow. There is no harm to society in people following genuine religious teachings as set out within the books of these different faiths. It is done from the motivation supposedly a desire to place the God you worship as first beyond everything and to be good and not evil. It is nothing disrespectful and is something that takes being able to totally remove self-desires and motivations out of the way.

People should at least respect the faiths of others no matter how little you agree with their beliefs and attempt to stay away from labeling them with bad names such as discriminating.

I am a Christian and I believe Christ is the one and only way to salvation, but I respect every man’s right to worship a different faith. I find many of the religions in our world to have many similar moral principles and can respect them even though I don’t believe all that they believe. I even respect and admire the followers of other religions and their commitment and obedience to their faith even more so than I witness those in my faith and my witness of it has taught me much and could teach many in the area of being true to what you believe or at least, what you say that you believe.

Lastly, I think that the faith community should attempt to do the same concerning the non-religious community and allow them to live their lives as they please without criticism and name calling and disrespect and attempting to FORCE our way of life upon them if they do not desire to believe what you believe.

To call ones religion as discriminating for upholding the precepts of their religion is frankly, non-sense, how about a little respect? This attempt of force and ridicule of the Christian faith is no different than what I have witnessed within the Christian communities attempting to force their way upon others.

Well I didn’t think so, but the Democrats just voted to allow Christian Scientists to be paid under HB3962 for praying as healthcare providers.
This is a new double standard. If they allow this, then private schools, religious or otherwise should be given tax credits to pay for tuition because of the money they are saving the state.

Neither the church nor private education should be supported by the state at all.

You said it all, D. On one hand, communities of faith have unique access to the needy and the profession of the ministry does provide untold opportunities to identify the neediest cases. Much good could be done.
But anyone who accepts government cash is subject to having the government place conditions upon its use. That’s why I - reluctantly - agree that faith-based federal grants should not be used as a means of poking the government camel’s nose into the faith communities’ tents.
I recall years ago reading a news story about the St. Louis Public School’s summer school program’s use of Catholic school facilities. Crucifixes and religious statues had to be draped in cloth so that the students would not - Horrors! - see these Christian symbols. At that time, Justin Rigali was the archbishop. He should have told the school district the archdiocese would not be participating in the program if it had to submit to this communist-like regimentation.

Churches are not subject to taxation, yet they accept the government money? That would seem more like unification of church and state……I do admit that I have never been in agreement with the tax-exempt status that church properties enjoy. If any organization (religious or secular) has property in a community, that property should be should be subject to taxation.

Kate, I envy you on your scooter. For eight years my transportation was a Mobylette moped in southern France and Tunisia. How I miss it!

I agree with your premise to a degree but for different reasons. As an evangelical conservative Christian (Presbyterian) I came to realize quite some years ago that many of us as Christians are shortsighted. We wanted and accepted certain privileges thinking they were due us as Christians not realizing they would be due others, e.g., Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, etc.

Many of my coreligionists will not agree with me, but some of my convictions come both from Scripture and from living in an Islamic society where the state and religion were one. As a result, I feel any Christian services, religious or social, should be paid for by Christians themselves. This allows full freedom to do them in the name of Christ and with the hope of winning those who are served to a knowledge and belief in Him. Many of us are living very affluent lives and haven’t come to the place of willing to sacrifice personal gain to do good for others and on behalf of our Savior.

I also now have a problem that we have a paid Senate chaplain. Our senators can look to their own clergy for counsel and spiritual guidance. Would we pay a chaplain for the Supreme Court or the Executive Branch of government? This is a democratic society, not a religiously-affiliated one. That means one day a rabbi, an imam, or another religion’s priest could be hired as well into the over $100,000 a year position. Should taxpayers of various faiths be paying for a chaplain they disagree with?

Now, I do feel chaplains in the military are warrented because the military represents a variety of faiths and there should be such assistance handy. At the same time, civilian clergy can be supported by their congregations and denominations to minister to the military.

Well, I hope I haven’t inserted too much controversy here. Perhaps the gist of my position is that God’s people are responsible for carrying on God’s work at their own expense.

I sure wish I had a scotter about now to ride off in and away from any disturbing controvery.

Es-salaam ali kum. Since I already opened up a can of worms, permit me to raise another issue after apologizing for the typo for scooter in my last paragraph.

There are now schools that receive taxpayer funding called public schools; they are charter schools. Some are for profit and some are even related to religious organizations seeking funding they could not raise otherwise. We are becoming a more divided society, and these schools promote such divisions.

The concept behind public education was a great one and brought together children and young people of diverse religions, ethnic backgrounds, and races and promoted uniting them as citizens for the future. The fact that some of these schools are so closely related (there are already Muslim charter schools) to some religious bodies and philosophies or doctrines raises the issue of whether or not this is how tax dollars should be directed.

I believe the issue raised by Kate Lovelady is much broader than most realize.

Merci et au revoir.

I agree with many of the previous comments. The basic thrust of my belief that religious groups should not accept tax money is based on the idea of control. As a taxpayer, I believe I have the right to know where my tax dollars are going, and that they are being spent appropriately. This means that recipients of tax money need to have open books to show where the money goes.

As a Christian, I believe the Establishment and Free exercise clauses are there to keep government out of the Church, not the other way around. The church needs to be free to do and act according to it’s beliefs and understanding. If any citizen can walk into a church office and demand to see the financial reports because there is tax money being used, that is a slippery slope.

I even have a problem over here in Illinois (I don’t know how it works in other states) where the Public School busses haul the parochial kids around. This requires, among other things, the parochial schools to follow the same calendar as the public schools. Even that seems to be an infringement on the parochial school. I agree, Helen Louise, on the Charter School funding.

Fundamentally, if you accept public money, then you have to follow government rules and practices. In fact, I know of some Religious entities who were offered public money (in the post Katrina Gulf work for one) and refused it BECAUSE they didn’t want a government agent telling them what to do or how to do it. Others (Presbyterian Disaster Assistance for one) accepted FEMA trailers and cardboard “pods” for workers, but no money.

It does get tricky, and I’d really like to hear some voices that support government funding of religious agencies about why they support it.