The only faith-based changes I want to see are to tax the religious reich, particularly the criminal establishment “Father” Jonathan belongs to.

I don’t believe there should be any government funding to religious institutions. These institutions should be supported by their congregations and their communities for any activities they wish to pursue.

Our government has already mandated federal programs and their funding in their Federal Annual Budgets. Church members are always welcome to volunteer their time to these programs.

The government provides for evaluation of these programs to determine their effectiveness and possible duplicity with other programs through PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) Website : ExpectMore.com.

{The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was developed to assess and improve program performance so that the Federal government can achieve better results. A PART review helps identify a program’s strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program more effective. The PART therefore looks at all factors that affect and reflect program performance including program purpose and design; performance measurement, evaluations, and strategic planning; program management; and program results. Because the PART includes a consistent series of analytical questions, it allows programs to show improvements over time, and allows comparisons between similar programs.}

When other institutions are directing these programs, they cannot be evaluated and their efforts are often duplicated to already funded programs serving the same community. At the same time, these programs may not have the oversight of possible abuses.

Becca -

The problem here is not ‘the student taking the wafer from the service he was in.’ The problem rather is here: the student took Jesus Christ — who is present and vulnerable in the Eucharist species, that is, bread and wine — from the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Father, you may be right about this. I don’t usually agree with clergy on many thigns, but it seems that you have taken the time to look at this issue deeply. Also, thanks for knowing your Constitution and you Bible.

All that said, Obama has it backwards, the governemnt should fund ALL faith-based programs. Not just Christian ones. Of course, thanks to our fantastically ill-educated Congress, all Islamic based programs won’t see anything anyway. Not that anyone should protect their privavy right?

In any case, by funding everybody it us clean on the Law and with whichever God you choose. By telling any church, the government will monitor how you operate is about a second away from dictating how that church should be ran. And unless Obama wants a “national” religion like in Britain, or umm Nazi Germany….then he is wrong.

Obama said America’s problems were too big to solve through government alone. “I believe that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques,” he said, during a visit to Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio.
Obama’s faith and spiritual leader are from the Trinity Church of Chicago which is based on liberation theology, a form of socialistic marxism. The bottom up change he speaks of could be a code word for Marxism. Obama could be spreading Marxism (Liberation theology) using your tax dollars.
The first two paragraphs came from a NOOBAMA web site, one that hasn’t been shut down yet. This is a fact of what Obama and his associates, who will resurface as soon as the election is over, are pushing for. We should run as fast as we can, from what generations in this great country have fought and died to keep from our borders. It is attacking from within, from those that have benefited the most from our generosity and freedom. This is one program that needs to be rethought out or abolished all together, charities and churches have for many years, been able without a partisan government agency, to help those in need. If they can’t, then try something besides a marxest, fashist, socialist Obama program.

My former hometown, Bay St. Louis, MS., was decimated by Hurricane Katrina. In its wide arc of destruction there was no power, no water, no food, no infrastructure, and it was beastly hot. To this ruined landscape came busloads of “church people” and other volunteer organizations, who lived in conditions worse than many of us, and they set up kitchens and cooked and distributed meals, gave out clothing, ice water, etc. I was truly amazed at their endurance, selfless dedication, and willingness to help. Many went out in the community and started helping people clean up, patch and rebuild what was left of their homes. FEMA and the Red Cross, while helpful, took time to get things set up and running and weren’t available immediately following the storm. These kind people took time off work, vacation time, unpaid leave, etc. to come down and help, and paid for all the food, water and gas themselves or through donations. They were truly among the “first responders”. This disaster would have been so much worse without them. When I commented to one lady about the efficiency of the operation, she said, “this is my fifth hurricane, and you get to know what people need after a while.”

I thought at the time how foolish not to reimburse them for what they provided, so they could continue to help others or expand their operations. They charge nothing for their time or expenses. You just can’t beat a deal like that. I can’t think of a better or more effective way to spend taxpayer money. You can argue this issue to death, but if you are involved in a disaster, you will quickly put aside your political, social and religious predjudices and just be really happy to see them.

The federal government exerts its influence through the power of the purse. “As a person who used to teach Constiutional law” (really) Federal funding is akin to crack cocaine–once an entity gets hooked, it is difficult to get off of it–therefore, the real danger of the entire “faith-based” initiative is that the program will ultimately alter the religion it “supports.” Case in point is how federal funding has diminished the “Catholicity” of various Catholic relief agencies and health organizations over issues like abortion and homosexual rights. Justice Burger actually understood this danger and discussed it as the basis for some of the early decisions that limited funding for Catholic schools (and created the “Lemon test” that has been somewhat abandoned by the court).

About the Comment by Terry

What exactly is the problem with the student taking the wafer from the service he was in? To many people it seems disrespectful and in bad taste, but the deeper problems and anger felt by many Catholics is not easy to understand. I hope Father Jonathan will take the time to explain it all.

It amazes me how people who profess to love and revere the Constitution really know very little about it. Folks, the words “separation of church and state” are nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. The only 2 things the U.S. Constitution says about religion is that the government can neither establish an official national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of any religion. If you really love that document as much as you say, try picking up a copy and reading it once in your lifetime.

People come to America for all kinds of reasons, from freedom seekers who want to establish a better life for themselves and their descendants, to freedom haters who come here seeking to destroy our way of life. But originally, folks came here to escape religious persecution. This is because all those enlightened Europeans had established official, state-sanctioned religions. If you wanted to worship God, you did so in the manner, place and time that the government dictated.

So how do faith-based initiatives establish a national religion? Simply put, they don’t. How do they prevent the free exercise of religion? Again, they don’t. Every day in this country, courts read and interpret laws according to the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words they contain. They do not read into them something that is not there, and they do not ignore something that obviously is.

Except for the U.S. Constitution: the supreme law of the land. In that case everyone is an expert and everyone has an opinion. Most of these opinions are based upon emotion rather than the wording of the actual Constitution, which the majority of Americans have never read. Take this document for what it is and what it means. It stands alone as the greatest guarantor of individual freedoms this planet has ever seen. Stop grafting your own prejudices onto it, stop reading your preconceived notions into it, and stop using it as weapon. Quit adding to and subtracting from it unless you are willing to officially Amend it. It was written by the finest minds of that generation is already quite complete. The only thing you can do with your “interpetations” is mess it up for everyone.

I do not trust The Government of God for any reason.

One only needs to look to the Government of Gods’ term Sanctuary and thus Sanctuary Cities as proof of how un-trustworthy the Governmof God really is. The term Sanctuary (here not applied to animals) means-a concecrated place (as part of a church in which the alter is placed).

In middle ages the Government of God and the European Government of Man came to an agreement about the ability of the Government of God to offer sanctuary to a person being sought by the Government of Man. But the Government of Man placed a resriction on the Government of God that the person being sought “must have their hands on the alter or be in the confessional’. No other sanctuary was to be given.

Over time The Government of God expanded its agreement with the Government of Man to include the building that the alter is in, the property that the building sits on, and the city where the property is located. This was forced upon Europe and is one of the main reasons Europe has been kept so small.

The Government of God is thus placing a-lien upon the Rights of the Government of Man in Europe.

We Americans proclaimed to all the bugs, all the insects, all the fish, all the animals, all the humans, and all the Gods/God that our Rights were and are UN-A-LIEN-ABLE. Come on Up.

Barack Obama is simply trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the religious. His “support” of faith-based initiatives, as the Father revealed, is specious, if not duplicitous, and exists as little more than an attempt to secure votes from a large segment of society from whom liberals usually receive little.

John McCain is by no means perfect, but I’ll take him and his platform (and experience) over the wily Senator Obama any day of the week. Come November, I’ll cast a vote for Senator McCain; by doing so, I’ll help keep radical leftism — represented by Mr. Obama — out of the White House!

I enjoy this open debate on the issues of church and state.

But I am shocked that so many people are confusing the term “Separation of Church and State” with the words of the Constitution.

“Separation of Church and State” should not be the phrase that we decide what is constitutional. That phrase came from a private letter written by Jefferson, but not the Constitution. It was not meant to clarify or expand on the role of the Constitution. It should never have entered into our general terminology.

Please when we discuss the role of the church and government, we should ONLY use the words of our Constitution. They say the Federal government should not establish a state church, that is only one church that everyone has to attend (intentionally saying an individual State can have that power). The words of the Constitution also say that the Federal government can not govern or tell us how to worship. It never says that we have to ban all religion from schools (as a matter of fact according to the Tenth Amendment, it is the Federal government that has no place in schools).

I have left out the words of the Constitution on purpose — please every American should read the Constitution and all the Amendments at least once a year it takes only a few minutes, and yet so many go their whole life never reading them even once.

The religion references are in the 1st admendment and in Article 6 the religion test.
There is no reference to separation of church and state, that is the interpretation.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

Prior to the constitution, several states had established a state religion. The design was to ensure the government did select a preferred religion (Church of England, etc.). Nor can it interfere with the free practice of religion.

The discrimination part of Obama’s statement would/could interfere with the second half of the freedom.

We use the term freely, but do we understand the meaning. We discriminate all the time, who we associate with, what food we eat. What we are really talking about is the criteria we use to discriminate. When hiring, I’d look for he best person for the job. Sometimes that means the smartest, most reliable. Sometimes it means I’m looking to help society and hire a challeged individual. I

In faith-based programs, one would assume the hired people would have expertise or a willingness to learn the faith. You can’t hire a rabbi to run a methodist church. If faith part is left out, as Obama is proposing, what’s left?

We have agreed that hiring based on race, national origin is illegal. How far do we take this? IF we are never to discriminate, do I have to hire the first person who walks through the door?

I am a social worker at a faith-based organization. I would like to know why an organization must be named faith based as all organizations can be faith-based. I think we are looking at religious organzations that are setting a precedent by saying all must be of the same faith. When they are really saying all must be of the same religion.

I don’t think that Barack Obama or John McClain have fully thought out the question of faith-based initiatives. However, if one is only allowed to handle only those who are the same faith? Why are they going to be able to work with a diversed group of people who are not of the same faith and who will hold them accountable.

Religion and Politics don’t have to be intergrated but they can be partners. I do beleive that Father John is off the mark in the sense he appears to be confused about religion and faith.

Fr: 1st Amendment states” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:” it then goes on about free speech and the press, assembly. In no case does the Constitution say anything about the government not being able to give grants to programs established by groups wether they be religious or otherwise nor does it add any caveats as Sen. Obama does in his “restricted” support of Faith Based Initiatives. Now, grants do not need to be given to 1 group or another and I doubt that use of funds that serve the public interest would be considered establishing a religion unless it was always 1 religious group. For those who see secularism invading our lives increasingly and the term “separation of church and state” being used loosely to restrict prayer and faith displays in our Divine Creator a reading of the constitution and strict interpretation thereof would not necessitate all of Obama’s restrictions nor the creation of a “council” for faith based programs. In fact, the council gets too close for comfort. You, by the way, deserve an apology for the disparagement of your thought process because you live in the Vatican at present. I believe you are still a U.S. citizen and a fairly well educated one at that. Peace, T

Faith based?
Taxpayer dollar’s?

If you enter a public building, be it a school, a city or town owned facility, or even privately owned business’, are you not already required to check your religion at the door, in the same way tobacco, alcohol and drugs are banned?

Since the Government has already taken so many of our Constitutional Rights, I say go for it!

Give tax dollars to faith based programs, and at the same time tax those faith based groups.

I will have to wait for now, but maybe someday America will elect someone who will take back our rights given us under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Nine out of Ten Americans will claim to be faith based. That number seems more than substantial to fund programs in their tax-free organizations.

Mr. McBama, Mr. Ocain, are you really suggesting we trust you and the other 87,000 elected Politicans to now fund Religion?

Fellow American’s, I say DUH-HUH, you all know what I mean!

Good point Father…Your points only confirm the fact that Obama is a socialist with a base rooted in Marxism. If you look at everything that he has to offer it comes with “government oversite” as part of the “package”. I’ve never seen such a “control freak” in all my life. Another thing that I just can’t understand is how people are so mistified with him. They look upon him as a movie star and go “gaw, gaw” over him. But when you ask them what he stands for, what is his base or why they’re voting for him they can’t give one substantive reason. They just keep repeating his platitudes and his “bumper sticker” comments (”change”, “yes we can”, etc.) Talk about ignorance…? It reminds me of the History Channel when they showed the history of the Third Reich. All the people were just overwhelmed by Hitler’s speaches and you could see women swooning over him. Talk about being blinded…Over what? I’m just trying to illustrate how people will just follow the crowd, even to the extent of going over a cliff…

Sorry, this is not about the current subject.

I am so angered about the FLA teen who hid the host inside his pocket so he could take it to a non-Catholic friend and show it to him. The news article said the host was an “icon” that “represented” the body of Christ.
First of all, what kind of a Catholic would do this?
Secondly. the host doesn’t “represent”, it IS the body of Christ!

Father Jonathan, I hope you will do an article on this incident. To me and many others, it is outrageous. There are so many people who do not respect the church, its environment, or its teachings. It’s so hard to feel spiritual around these “social” Catholics. Nothing is revered any more. Entire families walk in for Mass dressed in little or nothing. The parish priests do nothing to oversee respect for church & eachother. What is going on? Are the priests too afraid to make a statement for modesty and respect? I thought at one time that “we” were different, but what I see is every pastor trying “not to offend” lest someone BE offended and not come back, resulting in not contributing to the offertory, etc. What has the church become…I am ashamed on Sundays, and I try to remember Mother Theresa’s quote. “It’s not about you and them, It’s about you and God”….but it’s so hard.

Liberals and religion go together about as well as oil and water. Genuine believers know this, and genuine liberals know this. That causes problems for Obama with both the militant secularist left and center-right religious people - little by little, he’s blowing his own cover. Aside from the rhetoric, he’s actually kind of a sloppy politician in that sense - ironically his “Washington outsider” status may end up hurting him.

I am a social worker at a faith-based organization. I wonder why all organizations can be considered faith based and not jut religious organizations. It also seems odd that they would only want to be allowed to hire those of their religion not of their faith. The communties that they service are not usually of their faith and being human I do not see how they are able to keep faith seperate from down home damaging religion.

re: Constitution and Religion.

Problem is that the words of the Constitition cannot be relied upon as long as politicians and judges interpret them based on their political ideology. President Bush’s faith-based initiatives were as wrong-headed as his position on illegal immigration. All churches have a habit of hiding behind the “separation of church and state” to keep the government from interfering with their actions (i.e., the Catholic church violating federal law by sheltering illegals) but are perfectly willing to accept tax-exempt status by claiming they are doing charitable work. Now the churches and faith-based schools want federal grants and handouts, read taxpayer dollars, to support their work. If churches and church schools want to discriminate and hire whom they want and teach what they want, that’s fine, but don’t do it with my dollars. Raise your funds from your own congregations.

I used to watch Fox News, second only to EWTN but I don’t watch the former any longer. All you see is about Obama. Obama’s wife and his children and what he says about the price of tomatoes and where he is. He gets much more coverage then McCain. Granted he is interesting because his take on any subject changes from hour to hour. However, the unfairness of it should hit any thinking person!

I’m all for fair funding for ALL faith based humanitarian efforts that create a better environment in the communities in which they serve. If the Wiccans are doing a homeless outreach, they should be eligible for funding. If they have a private school in which their beliefs are taught, any funding that is afforded any other religion, should also be allowed to them, so that parents can choose to send their children to the school that most closely holds true to their belief structure.

I’m all for COMPLETE ACCOUNTABILITY for ANY faith based organization that recieves public monies. If funds are being funneled to build a house for some preacher instead of going into the education and empowerment of the people in their community, it’s time to call a viper, a viper and strip federal funding. If politics are being preached from the pulpit instead of faith, it’s time to start some investigations into wether or not that church can even hold on to a tax exempt status as a church, or if some other designation would best befit them, like political activism…

However, don’t try to force those people into hiring people that don’t share their faith and moral code. And to say that only churches with a “secular arm” can be given funding is far too close to being told that we can’t talk about our faith ANYWHERE other than in the church on Sunday and even that’s iffy. It also seems a bit too close to being forced to preach political agendas, rather than anything faith based.. While I agree that far too many churches are all about making a paying convert and leaving faith, hope, charity and love at the door, those are the ones that are going to run into accountability problems anyway.

But then I also believe in full disclosure of funding for different outreaches to the congregants of the church. If you can’t be honest about what you’re taking in from your own people and where you’re spending it.. you probably don’t want to be doing it, as a general rule of thumb. Sharing that information openly with one’s brothers and sisters, I believe, tends to keep one more honest. And requires the meticulous book keeping that is necessary for full accountability.

I’m an odd duck, I know. Part of a faith ministry is to spread your faith. It shouldn’t be forced, because forced belief is false belief. It should be shared, because without sharing, there is no understanding. Without understanding, there is no belief. Without belief, there is no faith. Without faith, there is no hope.

Without hope, EVERY cause is lost. Wether it be secular, or spiritual…

Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution.

It’s just above Article that describes Presidential “Signing Statements.”

Breanna,
Fr Jonathan, who has stated that the church should never say who they are voting for. Rather, he points out to us all the faults of BOTH sides in order for us to make up our own minds as to who to vote for. John McCain is who I will vote for this fall, but that does not mean that he has everything right. He happens to stand for the majority of what I stand for. And btw, I don’t have everything right either. Do you?

If we are going to be consistent, then Obama’s restrictions and guidelines should apply to every one of us. Every one of us takes government money in one form or another. A lot of us were educated in the public school system. All of us eat food and drink water that have, through government programs, been deemed safe. Just about every one of us take drugs approved by government agencies. All of us are protected by police funded by the government. Does this mean that none of us can discriminate in with whom we associate? We can’t tell anyone what beliefs we hold?

I think that we would be better off if the government would not try to mold the church into its image and the church did not make itself beholden to the government.

As a person of Christian faith, I believe in faith based programs. As a political conservative, initially, I thought the Bush proposal was great. I don’t see how I can continue to support it, though.
It is the God given role of the Church as His Kingdom instrument to do good works. He didn’t create good works as the role of government, but of His people, those who choose to follow him. I’m fine with giving of my resources towards helping people, individually and to my church. What I don’t need or want to do is give to the church and then pay more in taxes to do the same works.
Government dishing out money to religious groups, in my opinion, gives them a crutch they shouldn’t need or ask for. It creates additional political arguements which we don’t need, and creates opportunity for corruption…misuse of funds. It’s just welfare in another form, and welfare, when it’s run it’s course, cripples the recipients desire to fend for itself.
While I applaud the spirit of the initiative, I’m tired of government getting it’s hands into everything and raising our taxes. The more we’re taxed, the less we have to give.
Of course, if churches would allocate more of their resources to the real work of the kingdom of God and less to building programs and internal programs for the chosen, we wouldn’t need to have this discussion.

It is interesting that the most emotion laden postings seem to be from the left wing perspective.

Religion isn’t the problem, man is the problem. Man’s activating religion creates opportunity for abuse, as does any other activity where money and power are present.

The founding fathers believed that a religiously minded people was essential for the proper functioning of society. Government can not write enough laws to cotrol or tame an unruly popluation without infringing on personal liberty and freedom.

People still have to get a long and act in a responsible manner. They felt religion provide the proper guidance to that responsible manner. Religion was practiced on government property (prayers and other activities) regularly without an eye batting. The clean separation spoken about can never happen, but limiting the entanglement is possible.

An interesting point: if government should help fund sucessful faith based programs, which many have higher success rates than secular programs, why fund any of them?. Secularism/humanism could be considered a religion also. Why shoudl the government be involved, and leave it to the people and the churches to take care of.

If the government is to fund these programs, shouldn’t the government avail itself to the most cost effective programs available, faith-based or not?

Difference Category but curious….

Father,

Since we’re hearing so much of ‘cults’ these days, to Tom Cruise to Madonna and others, what if anything is the Catholic church saying or doing? Since both were once Catholics why isn’t a Bishop or priest intercepting? Something has gone terribly wrong about their understand of the Catholic faith for both of them to wonder down a dangerous path.

Thank you!

We are all right on this one, when looking at it from different perspectives. The govenment should stay out of our religions and should not be giving my money to organizations that I find theologically problematic. Leave that for me to decide. If the government wants us to give to faith-based organizations then they ned to cut taxes so that we can do it ourselves.
Regarding Obama’s position it is obvious that it is unconstitutional for the government to establish laws that would prohibit the free exercise of a religion, which his laws would do. This should be true even if the government provides funding for them. Unfortunately the government cannot provide funding without passing those laws. This is why the government simply cannot give money to these organizations.

Reading through many of these responces I find that many of them communicate anger towards religion and/or spirituality. I think that we all need to look t opposing views with an open mind and with the assumption that there is something that we can all learn from each other. Take the time to research other points of view and beliefs. Don’t just assume that what you hear is correct about any given religion.

If the government is funding programs (not religions, as some claim), the issue then is opportunity and not that all are funded equally. If the Wiccans have a faith based program to aid a segment of society, they should be eligible like any other program. I think the onous should be on the programs appling for funding not the government. Opportunity not outcome in this isntance should be the rule.

I would seem to me that the ideal solution to everyone’s problem is for the government to NOT collect the money to fund social programs. Leave the choice of which organization gets the money to individual donations. Christians could then fund their faith based programs and the secular population could fund their choice. Why should the government, which is the most inefficient organization in the world, decide who I should support. It would also force the programs to be accountable for their spending and results.

BTW, in Europe, the government IS funding the churches. I lived there for 6 1/2 yrs and saw many cathedrals unattended every Sunday. Apathy set in when the people no longer needed to or desired to tithe their ten percent. Why should they? 14% of their income was already taxed (this was at the time we were there in the late 80’s early 90’s- probably more now) It is called socialist governing- everything is paid for by the government. In trying to make everyone happy -NOONE is happy.

I may be wrong here. Wasn’t the original idea of faith based initiatives based on the fact that those who choose to put their children in private schools are paying taxes to fund the public schools with no benefit to them? Aren’t there kick-backs/fundings from the government depending on the number of children who attend on a daily basis? This is something that the private schools don’t have access to.

However, I for one don’t want the government meddling in the way my children’s private school is run. I don’t want the government to tell our principal that she has to hire someone outside our faith, when the reason we attend this particular church-run-school is to foster and form our children in the faith. I don’t want the government telling us that we must distribute condoms or teach about (not so safe)safe sex. That is what will happen under Obama’s rule of thumb. I don’t buy it and don’t want him for president.

Has anyone else noticed that liberal responses are emotion based?

Wow, what a tempest in a teapot. Give to the charity of your choice, faith based or otherwise. The government should set up the tax system so your donation comes off your taxes. Legitimate, successful programs that actually help people will flourish; others will fall by the wayside. The governments role is should only be to make sure that the charity is legit and not scamming money from us; and provide information on the efficiency of the charity so we can make an informed donation (you can look at sites like charitynavigator.org, they get their info from government reports).

Fiscally, isn’t this how everything in our government should work?

Father Jonathan,
Thank you for the article. The US Government needs to leave all of “their” money where it belongs - in the hands of the tax-paying citizens. Let us decide where our money should go.

“Senator McCain has a long way to go in convincing America that he is religion friendly.”

REALLY? Did you REALLY? Just make that statment? If you go back to my first comments to you and how stunned I was that you were for Obama, then you corrected me to read the article more thoroughly and see that you weren’t… I seem to believe that you’d doing a little thing I like to call ‘Flip-floppin.’ Hmm! You’re quite a confusing one for a man of faith. I’m not quite sure you know who you’d really like to win this election.

I have to say, that I liked this article. Obama wants to supervise the hiring of faith based groups so that they don’t give preference to “people who share the faith of the organization”? The last place I want the federal government is in my church. What If a Satanist wants to come work at my Christian Church is my pastor supposed to hire him so he dosen’t get sued? That’s absurd! Sounds like Russia or China and not America to me.

Thank you, Father Jonathan, for clearing up the differences in policy. I hate to think I’m becoming cynical, but I’m sensing a slippery slope in either one. What if the government simply stayed out of our faith-based programs and encouraged them from afar by tax incentives. If these are truly faith-based works, we should allow God to see them through for His purpose. The beneficial programs will flourish. I have faith, and my purse supports what the Holy Spirit moves me to support. Directly.

Father Jonathan,

Even though you and I disagree a lot, I applaud you for allowing people to comment and not deleting posts that are contrary to your opinion.

I wish more op eds did this.

thank you.

Father Jonathan ought to re-read the Constitution. It only mentions religion twice: first-there shall be no religious test to hold office (which Father Jonathan clearly believes there should be); and second-the first amendment says the government shall not establish religion or prohibit the free exercise there of. It does NOT say that the government shall not establish one religion over another, it says it will not establish religion period.

By providing tax exempt status and funding under the “faith based initiatives” the government is establishing religion. Do they give such privilages to ALL religious faiths? Wiccans? Devil worshipers? Pagans? If the answer is no, and it is, then you have just ESTABLISHED what is and what is not a religion. Under the Constitution, you just can’t do that, plain and simple.

Contrary to popular opinion, the First Amendment protects both the individual from government enforced religion, and it protects religions from government interference. It goes both ways.

church and state need to be separated in every way, the church should not recieve any moneys grants or funds in any way from the govt. churches should rely on the generousity of their congregations.
the govt already gives way way too much money for faith based programs and they always go arry. case in point the govt gives rev wright millions for his outreach programs (or is it called build wright a huge mansion program) and it is not a stretch to believe the money intended for the poor goes to the very wealthy.
we need to get government OUT of church in every way!!!!
when i donate money to the poor ill do it where i feel it does the best good, not let the govt give my hard earned tax dollars to whom they think should have it…. and more often than not it goes to radical extremists like wright, sharpton and jackson

It’s an interesting presumption, apparently held by both sides in this debate, that their side is more virtuous and pure in motivation. Evident in this perspective is an unspoken (in secularists) but assumed belief in some absolute truth, that there is a moral “right” against which each position in the argument must be measured. For Christians the belief in absolute truth is openly professed. However, none are above distortion, even of absolute truth. We are ALL biased by our own sin nature. Christians who deny this simply don’t grasp our condition as lost apart from the atoning death of Christ. Non-Christians who deny bias are equally deluded. Like I always say “well…there’s people involved!”

Perhaps we could all concentrate more on living consistently with our claimed perspectives?

Hmm.. Religion didn’t create war, polygamy, porn and the other ills. Man found that well before organized religion by falling a way from God. Religion (Christian) makes you feel guilty about it.

The words of separatation between church and state are not in the consitution, but are in the court’s interpretation. Madison’s and Jeffferson’s writings all sought to prevent a formal state religion such as the Church of England (Anglicans/Episcopalians).

In the beginning, faith based programs didn’t seek federal funding, Bush sought to direct exisiting funding to these programs, because they had a track record fo success high than traditional government programs.

The irony is that they have been successful because they are faith based. Remove the faith portion and they are just like all the rest. God moves to fill voids in peoples hearts that secular programs can not.

This discussion predates this posting, but if you take Caesar’s money, you play by his rules. Obama would be in his power to make the rules, but the bite has been pointed out. Obama sounds like a religious friendly person by supporting faith-based initiatives, but undercuts their authority, subverting their ability to perform all at the same time. I’d like to see the money go to what works, but in the long run, it is better for the church not to take the money, or be prepared to give it up at any moment.

Pretty shrewd politician. Lousey leadership, but pretty shrewd. Welcome to Jimmy Carter’s second term, for those too young to remember, it didn’t work out to well.

The church doesn’t take the money, people are commanded in His law to “give their first fruits to the Lord.” The money is to do his work in 2 ways. Meet the needs of the church and it mission, meet the needs of the giver. God doesn’t need the money, but you need the benefit to your soul by developing a generous spirit.

Funny, for Fox News being so “evil” to liberal outlooks, why are so many here…. converting the heathens or seeking the truth……

I agree with Joe from July 7.

Also, I have a very bad feeling about Barry Obama, a very bad feeling. We should be voting with our consciences and not just with our hands. Anyone who is pro-choice doesn’t seem to me to show much judgment about is right and what is wrong to begin with. A Constitutional Law professor? Where are the rights of the unborn to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Who in his or her right mind would vote for a murderer?

God gave us brains, we just don’t use them

When emotion runs the country and politicians prey upon emotions such as faith to attain an objective, the politician is showing his or her true colors.

Faith based initiatives and government aid to them is pandering to a select few.

I would rather keep my tax dollars in my own pocket so I can donate to who I see fit. I would rather give twenty dollars to someone on the street who needs it and who will benefit by it without it compromising him or her or incurring “administration expenses” than having someone spend my money by proxy.

If the Son of Man were walking the earth, I could not envision him riding with your boss in the back seat of the pope mobile enjoying a mutual joke. I suspect from what I read, the Son of Man would be the first to decry your boss and his minions.

if I could address this statement: ” How, as a Christian, do you justify McCain’s stance on war?”

Its easy, this comes down to truth, justice and a right to exist. People sometimes mistake the Christian faith for following Ghandi, and assume there must be some kind of passive response to bands of murderers who invade, steal and destroy? Why do some people say there should be no defense, no protection?

Many folks who oppose this war take the side of (whether they know it or not) the criminals, the terrorists, the murderers and say how dare the USA attempt to bring justice to the world, in fact the USA needs to surrender and put the criminals back into power (Obama’s supporters demand this); or print media needs to publish top secrets to help the terrorists;

Being a Christian means to have a desire for truth and to work to see fairness. For these reasons alone Christians are opposed to crime/terrorism whether on a small scale or on a large scale (up to and including war).

The war was needed, in fact if combat with Iran breaks out soon, it is also needed to stop a force worse than Hitler. If stopping Hitler in the 1940s was a good cause then so is stopping the Iranian regime.

And I fail to understand the indignance towards Foxnews, the only media news channel that tries to give both political sides of the argument and report on the truth. Why do people hate Foxnews? perhaps it matches with a mindset of hatred for America and the free world, Foxnews is pro American and that really upsets certain people, so they want Foxnews silenced.

Father,
I notice that most of your articles are pro Republican, not pro conservative.
Does this mean that the ALL Catholics and priests feel as you do???
Or is there a Catholic commentator different views - why not publish his views along side of yours so we can get a balanced view???

Mike Baird, I disagree with your assumption. Christians are the biggest givers in the world. I have been to many countries and most always it is Christian Americans who are doing just what you claim they don’t do, put their faith to work in taking care of hurting people. Some are “senders” and some are “goers” to bring the love of Jesus Christ to a dying world. I think you may be confused with a secular humanist who simply attends Sunday services to appease their conscience or be social with true believers. Either way I do ot wan’t Obama’s “faith based” money, nor should it go to secular “Christian” churches like the one Obama attended where they spew hatred and racism and teach it to future generations…..

Father Jonathan - Thanks for the insightful comments

Mark Baird - I’ll get rid of my SUV and flat screen TV’s as soon as you donate 10% or more of your gross income to a charity….

Ummm…is it me or is the funding of faith groups by the federal government actually establishing religion (in this case all religions) buy funding those organizations?

I would rather it be the way it has been…the parishioners fund, through donations, tithing or alms, the faith based organizations efforts-keep government out of religion.

Yeah, smart guy, that Madison.

Jack just thought he’d be a real scholar and post snippets that support the decisive church-state apartheid argument that the big-government-is-a-panacea people want so badly. He feels strongly that if he can put things in quotation marks, he can link constitutional law to directly to his opinion. Still, nothing in any of the disjointed quotations suggests that the government should have it’s hands in *all* religious pies. In fact, from what I read, everything suggests as was previously mentioned: No religious sect shall have preference over any other. This is one of the primary tools by which tyranny is avoided. THAT and THAT ALONE is what the Constitution states. Those words alone were the distillation of all those disjointed quotes, letters and statements. If you’re going to be a scholar, place the proper emphasis on the proper documents.

Why do we call them “faith” based initiatives.

In reality they are “religion” based programs.

The use of euphemisms seduce us when we might be better served by facing the full implications of the unvarnished truth. Faith based equals religion based subsidies period.

Hypocritical Republicans subsidize religion!

If in fact, the pure Republican agenda is to promote free (competition based) free enterprise, then, they should not be subsidizing religion.

Religions ought to compete in the market like everybody else.

The trick is to be critically aware of euphemisms, to recognize the unvarnished truths they pretty up, and to use them only when politeness is more important than truth.

Faith based initiatiatives are in fact religion subsidized government promoted tax supported programs.

A message to JTL: please do some research before you spout off on the Vatican. The Catholic Church does more for charity in this country and around the world than any other group and possibly all other groups combined. I work for a religious based hospital which constantly writes off bills for patients who are turned away by secular profit-driven hospitals because they either don’t have enough insurance or don’t have any insurance. These non-profit religious hospitals also abide by various governmental guidelines and regulations, and they should be able to continue to